In Vitro Biochemical Markers of Skin Toxicity

  • Corrado L. Galli
  • Marina Marinovich
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 181)


The skin is a complex organ but for simplicity it can be viewed as three separate compartments or functions: the dermis (vascular events) supporting the epidermis (differentiating cell layers) giving rise to the stratum corneum (permeability barrier). In developing in vitro models for the different expression of cutaneous toxicity (tab. 1), it is important to emulate this complexity as far it is feasible.


Stratum Corneum Skin Toxicity Rabbit Ileum Tributyltin Chloride Bovine Cornea 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J.H. Draize, G. Woodard, and H.O. Calvery, Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 82: 377 (1944).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A.B.G. Burton, M. York, and R.S. Lawrence, The in vitro assessment of severe eye irritants, Fd. Cosmet. Toxicol., 19: 471 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. York, R.S. Lawrence, and G.B. Gibson, An in vitro test for the assessment of eye irritancy in consumer products — preliminary findings, Int. J. Cosm. Sci., 4: 223 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.B. Price and I.J. Andrews, The in vitro assessment of eye irritancy using isolated eyes, Fd. Chem. Toxicol., 23: 313 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    H.B.W.M. Koeter and M.K. Prinsen, Introduction of an in vitro eye irritation test as a possible contribution to the reduction of the number of animals in toxicity testing, Final Report, Report No. V. 85.188/140322. Zeist: TNO (1985).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C.A. Benassi, M.R. Angi, L. Salvalaio, and A. Bettero, Ocular irritancy evaluated in vivo by conjunctival lavage technique and in vitro by bovine eye cup model, in: “In vitro toxicology — Appraoches to validation”, A.M. Goldberg, ed., Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., Publishers, New York, (1987).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M.C. Scaife, An in vitro cytotoxicity test to predict the ocular irritation potential of detergents and detergent products, Fd.Chem.Toxicol. 23:253 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Anderman, and M. Erhart, Are local tolerance tests in animals always necessary?, Meth. and Find. Exptl. Clin. Pharmacol., 5:321 (1983).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C.K. Muir, A simple method to assess surfactant-induced bovine corneal opacity in vitro: preliminary findings, Toxicol. Lett. 19:309, (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O.K. Muir, Opacity of bovine cornea in vitro induced by surfactants and industrial chemicals compared with ocular irritancy in vivo, Toxicol. Lett., 24:157 (1985).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    I. Haruyoshi, With which component of the bovine isolated cornea does sodium lauryl sulphate react to produce opacity? Toxicol. Lett. 32: 249 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. G. Helman, J.W. Hall, and J.Y. Kao, Acute dermal toxicity: in vivo and in vitro comparison in mice, Fund. Appl. Toxicol., 7:94 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    G.J.A. Oliver, M.A. Pemberton, and C. Rhodes, An in vitro skin corrosivity test — modifications and validation, Fd. Chem. Toxicol. 24: 507 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. E. Parish, Relevance of in vitro tests to in vivo acute skin inflammation: potential in vitro applications of skin keratome slices, neutrophils, fibroblasts, mast cells and macrophages, Fd.Chem.Toxicol., 23:275 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A.M. Dannenberg, jr., K.G. Moore, B.H. Schofield, K. Higuchi, A. Kajiki, K.W. Au, P.J. Pula, and D.P. Bassett, Two New in vitro Methods for Evaluating Toxicity to Skin (Employing short-term organ culture): I. Paranuclear vacuolization seen in glycol methacrylate tissue sections; II. Inhibition of 14C-leucine incorporation, in: “In vitro toxicology — Approaches to validation”, A.M. Goldberg, ed. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., Publishers, New York, (1987).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C.K. Muir, C. Flower, and N.J. Van Abbe, A novel approach to the search for in vitro alternatives to in vivo eye irritancy testing, Toxicol. Lett., 18:1 (1983).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    C.K. Muir, The comparative toxic effects of proprietary antidandruff, adult and baby shampoos on rabbit ileum, Toxicol. Lett., 18:227 (1983).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    C.K. Muir, The toxic effect of some industrial chemicals on rabbit ileum in vitro compared with eye irritancy in vivo, Toxicol. Lett., 19:309 (1983).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Leighton, J. Nassauer, and R. Tchao, The chick embryo in toxicology: an alternative to the rabbit eye, Fd. Chem. Toxicol., 23:293 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    R.S. Lawrence, M.H. Groom, D.M. Ackroyd, and W.E. Parish, The chorioallantoic membrane in irritation testing, Fd. Chem. Toxicol., 24:497 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    J.B. Price, M.P. Barry, and I.J. Andrews, The use of chick chorioallantoic membrane to predict eye irritants, Fd. Chem. Toxicol., 24:503 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    N.P. Lupke, The hen’s egg test (HET) — an alternative toxicity test, Br. J. Dermatol. 115 (suppl. 31):133 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    B.M. Kong, The evolution of an alternative to the Draize eye test, Soap Cosmetics Chem. Specialities, July, 40 (1987).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Silverman, Preliminary findings on the use of protozoa (Tetrahymena thermophila) as models for ocular irritation testing in rabbits, Lab. Ann. Sci. 33:56 (1983).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    W.G. Spector, and D.A. Willoughby, Chemical mediators. II. In: “The inflammatory process”, B.W. Zweifach, L. Grant and R.T. McCluskey, Eds., New York and London, Publishers (1965).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    L. Goldberg, Charting a course for cell culture. Alternatives to animal testing, Fund. Appl. Toxicol., 6:607 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    E. Borenfreund, C. Shopsis, O. Borrero, and S. Sathe, In vitro alternative irritancy assay: comparison of cytotoxic and membrane transport effects of alcohols, Ann. N·. Y. Acad. Sci., 407:416 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    E. Borenfreund, and O. Borrero, In vitro cytotoxicity assays: potential alternatives to the Draize ocular irritancy test, Cell. Biol. and Toxicol. 1:33 (1984).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    C. Shopsis, and S. Sathe, Uridine uptake inhibition as a cytotoxicity test: correlations with the Draize test, Toxicology 29:195 (1984).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    C. Shopsis, E. Borenfreund, J. Waldberg, and D.M. Stark, A battery of potential alternatives to the Draize test: Uridine uptake inhibition, morphological cytotoxicity, macrophage Chemotaxis and exfoliative cytology, Fd. Chem. Toxicol. 23:259 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    E. Borenfreund, and J.A. Puerner, Toxicity determined in vitro by morphological alterations and neutral red absorption, Toxicol. Lett. 24:119 (1985).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    K. Hockley, and D. Baxter, Use of the 3T3 cell-neutral red uptake assay for irritants as an alternative to the rabbit (Draize) test, Fd. Chem. Toxicol. 24:473 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    E. Tragni, A. Corsini, R. Fumagalli, and C.L. Galli, Lack of correlation between TPA-induced Prostaglandin biosynthesis and Ornithine decarboxylase activity in BALB/c mouse 3T3 fibroblasts. Biochim. Biophys. Res. Comm., 139:186 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    G. Furstenberger, H. Richter, N.E. Fusenig, and F. Marks, Arachidonic acid and Prostaglandin E 2 release and enhanced cell proliferation induced by the phorbol ester TPA in a murine epidermal cell line, Cancer Lett. 11:191 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    E. Tragni, D. Caruso, S. Porta, R. Fumagalli, G. Galli and C.L. Galli, Arachidonic acid metabolism in HEL/30 murine epidermal cell line, Arch. Dermatol. Res., 280:437 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    E. Tragni, M. Marinovich, A.R. Ciranni, A. Granata, A. Corsini, and C.L. Galli, In vitro tests to evaluate the topical toxicity of compounds, ATLA, 16:72 (1988).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    M. Marinovich, B. Viviani, E. Tragni, A. Corsini, A. Granata, and C.L. Galli, Correlazione fra il Potenziale irritante di tensioattivi in vivo e la loro attività citotossica, Cosmesi Dermatologica 26:35 (1989).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    S.O. Lock, and J.V. Friend, Photoxicity testing in vitro: evaluation of mammalian cell culture techniques, Fd. Chem. Toxicol. 24:789 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    H. North-Root, F. Yackovich, J. Demetrulias, M. Gacula, and J.E. Heinze, Evaluation of an in vitro cell toxicity test using rabbit corneal cells to predict the eye irritation potential of surfactants, Toxicol. Lett. 14:207 (1982).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    H. North-Root, F. Yackovich, J. demetrulias, M. Gacula, and J.E. Heinze, Prediction of the eye irritation potential of shampoos using the in vitro SIRC cell toxicity test, Fd. Chem. Toxicol. 23:271 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    C.A. Reinhardt, H.P. Schawalder, and G. Zbinden, Cell detachment and cloning efficiency as parameters for cytotoxicity, Toxicology 25:47 (1982).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    R.B. Kemp, D.M. Cross, and R.W.J. Meredith, Comparison of cell death and adenosine triphosphate content as indicators of acute toxicity in vitro, Xenobiotica 18:633 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    M. Marinovich, J.L. Lorenzo, L.M. Flaminio, A. Granata, and C.L. Galli, The Hep G2 cell line as a possible alternative to isolated hepatocytes in cytotoxicity studies, ATLA 16:16 (1988).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    C.A. Reinhardt, D.A. Pelli, and G. Zbinden, Interpretation of cell toxicity data for the estimation of potential irritation, Fd. Chem. Toxicol. 23:247 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    M.C. Scaife, An investigation of the detergent action on cells in vitro and possible correlations with in vivo data, Int. J. Cosm. Sci. 4:179 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    A. Stammati, R. Pirovan, E. Vigna, and P. Zaninelli, A comparative in vitroin vivo study on twelve compounds with different skin irritation potential, ATLA 16:71 (1988).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    R. Ernst, and J. Arditti, Biological effects of surfactants, IV effects of non-ionics and amphoterics on HeLa cells, Toxicology 15:233 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    P.J. Dierickx, Uridine uptake inhibition in KB cells, in “Collaborative study on relationship between in vivo primary irritation and in vitro experimental models”, EEC Project 86E3–063/86460 (1988).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    J.W. Bridges, D.J. Benford, and S.A. Hubbard, The design and use of in vitro cytotoxicity tests, in: “Animals in scientific research: an effective substitute for man?” P. Turner, ed., Macmillan, London (1983).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    D.M. Stark, C. Shopsis, E. Borenfreund, and H. Babich, Progress and problems in evaluating and validating alternative assays in toxicology, Fd. Chem. Toxicol. 24:449 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    E. Borenfreund, and O. Borrero, In vitro cytotoxicity assays — Potential alternatives to the Draize ocular allergy test, Cell Biology and Toxicology 1:55 (1984).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    C.A. Tyson, Correspondence of results from hepatocyte studies with in vivo response, Toxicology and Industrial Health 3:459 (1987).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    J.F. Parsons, R.J. Safford, J. Friend, and J. Philp, In vitro cell perfusion. Part I. System for continuous observation of cells and analysis of perfusion fluid suitable for isolated mast cell and macrophage studies, J. Pharmac. Meth. 8:73, (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    B. Magnusson, and A.M. Kligman, in “Allergic contact dermatitis in the Guinea pig. Identification of contact allergens”, C.C. Thomas, ed., Springfield, Il. (1970).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    W.E. Parish, Evaluation of in vitro predictive tests for irritation and allergic sensitization, Fd. Chem. Toxicol., 24:481 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    I.A. Magnus, in:”Dermatological photobiology”, Blackwell, Oxford (1978).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    H. Ippen, Basic mechanism of photoallergic reactions, in: “Proceedings of VIth International Congress on Photobiology”, Schenck, Bocham, (1972).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Corrado L. Galli
    • 1
  • Marina Marinovich
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Pharmacological SciencesUniversity of Milan — Research Center on Cosmetic ToxicologyMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations