Archives of Toxicology

, Volume 92, Issue 4, pp 1495–1505 | Cite as

Lymphocyte surface markers and cytokines are suitable for detection and potency assessment of skin-sensitizing chemicals in an in vitro model of allergic contact dermatitis: the LCSA-ly

  • Janna Frombach
  • Anna Sonnenburg
  • Björn-Dirk Krapohl
  • Torsten Zuberbier
  • Matthias Peiser
  • Ralf Stahlmann
  • Maximilian SchreinerEmail author


Allergic contact dermatitis is a widespread health disorder and occupational skin disease. Hence, screening for contact-sensitizing chemicals is highly relevant to toxicology, dermatology, and occupational medicine. The use of animal tests for this purpose is constrained by ethical considerations, need for high-throughput screening, and legislation (e.g., for cosmetics in the European Union). T cell activation is the final and most specific key event of the “adverse outcome pathway” for skin sensitization and therefore a promising target for the development of in vitro sensitization assays. We present a novel in vitro sensitization assay with a lymphocyte endpoint as an add-on to the loose-fit coculture-based sensitization assay (LCSA): the LCSA-ly. While the LCSA measures dendritic cell activation, the LCSA-ly offers the option for an additional lymphocyte endpoint which can be measured concurrently. We incorporated lymphocytes in our previously established coculture of primary human keratinocytes and monocyte-derived dendritic cells and tested nine substances: five sensitizers [2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB) 1.25–15 µmol/l, p-phenylenediamine (PPD) 15.6–125 µmol/l, 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT) 50–1000 µmol/l, coumarin, and resorcinol (both: 250–1500 µmol/l)] and four non-sensitizers (monochlorobenzene, caprylic acid, glycerol, and salicylic acid (all: 125–1000 µmol/l)]. DNCB and MBT increased a subset of IL-23 receptor+/IFN-γ receptor 1 (CD119)+ lymphocytes. DNCB, PPD, and MBT enhanced a subunit of the IL-4 receptor (CD124) and a memory marker (CD44) on lymphocytes. Remarkably, DNCB, PPD, and MBT raised IL-4 concentrations in coculture supernatants while IFN-γ levels decreased, which might point to Th2 activation in vitro. Coumarin, resorcinol, and non-sensitizers did not alter any of the tested surface markers or cytokines. IL-17 was not affected by any of the substances. Relative strength of sensitizers according to lymphocyte markers was DNCB > PPD > MBT, which corresponds to earlier results from the LCSA without lymphocyte endpoint, the murine local lymph node assay, and human data. This study is the first to prove the suitability of lymphocyte surface markers for sensitization testing and potency assessment.


In vitro sensitization assay Lymphocytes Coculture Allergic contact dermatitis 



Studies were supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant no. 31P5924). We are also grateful for a grant from the Sonnenfeld Stiftung, Berlin, providing financial support for the FACS Calibur. Some experiments in this study were part of Janna Frombach’s master thesis.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

204_2018_2164_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (789 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 790 KB)


  1. Ahmed SS, Wang XN, Fielding M et al (2016) An in vitro human skin test for assessing sensitization potential. JAT 36(5):669–684. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashby J, Basketter DA, Paton D, Kimber I (1995) Structure activity relationships in skin sensitization using the murine local lymph node assay. Toxicology 103(3):177–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashikaga T, Yoshida Y, Hirota M et al (2006) Development of an in vitro skin sensitization test using human cell lines: the human cell line activation test (h-CLAT). I. Optimization of the h-CLAT protocol. Toxicol In vitro Int J Publ Assoc BIBRA 20(5):767–773. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basketter DA, Alepee N, Ashikaga T et al. (2014) Categorization of chemicals according to their relative human skin sensitizing potency. Dermatitis: contact, atopic, occupational. Drug 25(1):11–21 Google Scholar
  5. Bellinghausen I, Brand U, Enk AH, Knop J, Saloga J (1999) Signals involved in the early TH1/TH2 polarization of an immune response depending on the type of antigen. J Allergy Clin Immunol 103(2 Pt 1):298–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dearman RJ, Moussavi A, Kemeny DM, Kimber I (1996) Contribution of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocyte subsets to the cytokine secretion patterns induced in mice during sensitization to contact and respiratory chemical allergens. Immunology 89(4):502–510CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Dietz L, Esser PR, Schmucker SS et al (2010) Tracking human contact allergens: from mass spectrometric identification of peptide-bound reactive small chemicals to chemical-specific naive human T-cell priming. Toxicol Sci 117(2):336–347. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dutton RW, Bradley LM, Swain SL (1998) T cell memory. Annu Rev Immunol 16:201–223. Google Scholar
  9. Frombach J, Sonnenburg A, Krapohl BD, Zuberbier T, Stahlmann R, Schreiner M (2017) A novel method to generate monocyte-derived dendritic cells during coculture with HaCaT facilitates detection of weak contact allergens in cosmetics. Arch Toxicol 91(1):339–350. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Huang H, Paul WE (1998) Impaired interleukin 4 signaling in T helper type 1 cells. J Exp Med 187(8):1305–1313CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Krasteva M, Peguet-Navarro J, Moulon C, Courtellemont P, Redziniak G, Schmitt D (1996) In vitro primary sensitization of hapten-specific T cells by cultured human epidermal Langerhans cells—a screening predictive assay for contact sensitizers. Clin Exp Allergy J Br Soc Allergy Clin Immunol 26(5):563–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leist M, Hasiwa N, Rovida C et al (2014) Consensus report on the future of animal-free systemic toxicity testing. Altex 31(3):341–356. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Maecker HT, Lindstrom TM, Robinson WH et al (2012) New tools for classification and monitoring of autoimmune diseases. Nat Rev Rheumatol 8(6):317–328. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin SF, Esser PR, Schmucker S et al (2010) T-cell recognition of chemicals, protein allergens and drugs: towards the development of in vitro assays. CMLS 67(24):4171–4184. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Novelli F, D’Elios MM, Bernabei P et al (1997) Expression and role in apoptosis of the alpha- and beta-chains of the IFN-gamma receptor on human Th1 and Th2 clones. J Immunol 159(1):206–213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. OECD (2014) The adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitisation initiated by covalent binding to proteins. OECD, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. OECD (2016) Annex I: guidance document on the reporting of defined approaches and individual information sources to be used within integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA) for skin sensitisation. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  18. Opdyke DL (1981) Monographs on fragrance raw materials. Food Cosmet Toxicol 19(2):237–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Overton WR (1988) Modified histogram subtraction technique for analysis of flow cytometry data. Cytometry 9(6):619–626. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Parham C, Chirica M, Timans J et al (2002) A receptor for the heterodimeric cytokine IL-23 is composed of IL-12Rbeta1 and a novel cytokine receptor subunit, IL-23R. J Immunol 168(11):5699–5708CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Peiser M (2013) Role of Th17 cells in skin inflammation of allergic contact dermatitis. Clin Dev Immunol 2013:261037. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Peiser M, Tralau T, Heidler J et al (2012) Allergic contact dermatitis: epidemiology, molecular mechanisms, in vitro methods and regulatory aspects. Current knowledge assembled at an international workshop at BfR, Germany. CMLS 69(5):763–781. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Python F, Goebel C, Aeby P (2007) Assessment of the U937 cell line for the detection of contact allergens. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 220(2):113–124. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Rougier N, Redziniak G, Mougin D, Schmitt D, Vincent C (2000) In vitro evaluation of the sensitization potential of weak contact allergens using langerhans-like dendritic cells and autologous T cells. Toxicology 145(1):73–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Schreiner M, Peiser M, Briechle D, Stahlmann R, Zuberbier T, Wanner R (2007) A loose-fit coculture of activated keratinocytes and dendritic cell-related cells for prediction of sensitizing potential. Allergy 62(12):1419–1428. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Schreiner M, Peiser M, Briechle D, Stahlmann R, Zuberbier T, Wanner R (2008) A new dendritic cell type suitable as sentinel of contact allergens. Toxicology 249(2–3):146–152. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Sonnenburg A, Ahuja V, Schreiner M, Platzek T, Stahlmann R (2012) Assessment of the sensitizing potential of textile disperse dyes and some of their metabolites by the loose-fit coculture-based sensitization assay (LCSA). Arch Toxicol 86(5):733–740. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Swain SL, Weinberg AD, English M, Huston G (1990) IL-4 directs the development of Th2-like helper effectors. J Immunol 145(11):3796–3806PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Urbisch D, Mehling A, Guth K et al (2015) Assessing skin sensitization hazard in mice and men using non-animal test methods. RTP 71(2):337–351. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Urbisch D, Becker M, Honarvar N et al (2016) Assessment of pre- and pro-haptens using nonanimal test methods for skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol 29(5):901–913. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Valente G, Ozmen L, Novelli F et al (1992) Distribution of interferon-gamma receptor in human tissues. Eur J Immunol 22(9):2403–2412. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Vocanson M, Cluzel-Tailhardat M, Poyet G et al (2008) Depletion of human peripheral blood lymphocytes in CD25+ cells allows for the sensitive in vitro screening of contact allergens. J Investig Dermatol 128(8):2119–2122. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Vocanson M, Mutez V, Esser PR et al. (2017) Contact hypersensitivity: T-cell based assay. Curr Opin Toxicol 5(Supplement C):39–45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vukmanovic S, Sadrieh N (2017) Skin sensitizers in cosmetics and beyond: potential multiple mechanisms of action and importance of T-cell assays for in vitro screening. Crit Rev Toxicol 47(5):415–432. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Wanner R, Sonnenburg A, Quatchadze M et al (2010) Classification of sensitizing and irritative potential in a combined in-vitro assay. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 245(2):211–218. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wong CL, Ghassabian S, Smith MT, Lam AL (2015) In vitro methods for hazard assessment of industrial chemicals—opportunities and challenges. Front Pharmacol 6:94. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and ToxicologyCharité-Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Dermatology and AllergyCharité-Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Department of Plastic SurgerySt. Marien Hospital BerlinBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Department Safety of PesticidesFederal Institute for Risk AssessmentBerlinGermany
  5. 5.Department of Internal MedicineBundeswehr HospitalBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations