Expression of surface markers on the human monocytic leukaemia cell line, THP-1, as indicators for the sensitizing potential of chemicals

Background: Evaluation of skin sensitization potential is an important part of the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients and topical drugs. Recently, evaluation of changes in surface marker expression induced in dendritic cells (DC) or DC surrogate cell lines following exposure to chemicals represents one approach for in vitro test methods. Objective: The study aimed to test the change of expression patterns of surface markers on THP-1 cells by chemicals as a predictive in vitro method for contact sensitization. Methods: We investigated the expression of CD54, CD86, CD83, CD80, and CD40 after a 1-day exposure to sensitizers (1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene; 2,4-dinitrofluorobenzene; benzocaine; 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one; hexyl cinnamic aldehyde; eugenol; nickel sulfate hexahydrate; potassium dichromate; cobalt sulfate; 2-mercaptobenzothiazole; and ammonium tetrachloroplatinate) and non-sensitizers (sodium lauryl sulfate, benzalkonium chloride, lactic acid, salicylic acid, isopropanol, and dimethyl sulphoxide). The test concentrations were 0.1 X, 0.5 X, and 1 X of the 50% inhibitory concentration, and the relative fluorescence intensity was used as an expression indicator. Result and Conclusion: By evaluating the expression patterns of CD54, CD86, and CD40, we could classify the chemicals as sensitizers or non-sensitizers, but CD80 and CD83 showed non-specific patterns of expression. These data suggest that the THP-1 cells are good model for screening contact sensitizers and CD40 could be a useful marker complementary to CD54 and CD86.Rasaiyaah J, 2007, BRIT J HAEMATOL, V138, P281, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06622.xPython F, 2007, TOXICOL APPL PHARM, V220, P113, DOI 10.1016/j.taap.2006.12.026Bocchietto E, 2007, INT J IMMUNOPATH PH, V20, P259Sakaguchi H, 2007, ARCH DERMATOL RES, V298, P427, DOI 10.1007/s00403-006-0714-9Ciabattini A, 2006, CLIN VACCINE IMMUNOL, V13, P1037, DOI 10.1128/CVI.00110-06Sakaguchi H, 2006, TOXICOL IN VITRO, V20, P774, DOI 10.1016/j.tiv.2005.10.014Azam P, 2006, TOXICOL APPL PHARM, V212, P14, DOI 10.1016/j.taap.2005.06.018Berges C, 2005, BIOCHEM BIOPH RES CO, V333, P896, DOI 10.1016/j.bbrc.2005.05.171Cao WP, 2005, BIOCHEM J, V385, P85, DOI 10.1042/BJ20040741Gerberick GF, 2004, TOXICOL SCI, V81, P332, DOI 10.1093/toxsci/kfh213Galdiero M, 2004, MICROBIOLOGICA, V27, P309Rustemeyer T, 2003, EXP DERMATOL, V12, P682Yoshida Y, 2003, TOXICOL IN VITRO, V17, P221, DOI 10.1016/S0887-2333(03)00006-7Ashikaga T, 2002, TOXICOL IN VITRO, V16, P711Hulette BC, 2002, TOXICOL APPL PHARM, V182, P226, DOI 10.1006/taap.2002.9447Cumberbatch M, 2000, CLIN EXP DERMATOL, V25, P413Coutant KD, 1999, TOXICOL SCI, V52, P189*NAT TOX PROGR, 1999, NIH PUBLAiba S, 1997, EUR J IMMUNOL, V27, P3031Krasteva M, 1996, CLIN EXP ALLERGY, V26, P563BASKETTER DA, 1994, FOOD CHEM TOXICOL, V32, P543MOULON C, 1993, IMMUNOLOGY, V80, P373ENK AH, 1992, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V89, P1398