Skin is important for the absorption and metabolism of exposed chemicals such as cosmetics or pharmaceuticals. The Seventh Amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits the use of animals for cosmetic testing for certain endpoints, such as genotoxicity; therefore, there is an urgent need to understand the xenobiotic metabolizing capacities of human skin and to compare these activities with reconstructed 3D skin models developed to replace animal testing. We have measured Phase I enzyme activities of cytochrome P450 (CYP) and cyclooxygenase (COX) in ex vivo human skin, the 3D skin model EpiDermÔ (EPI-200), immortalized keratinocyte-based cell lines and primary normal human epidermal keratinocytes. Our data demonstrate that basal CYP enzyme activities are very low in whole human skin and EPI-200 as well as keratinocytes. In addition, activities in monolayer cells differed from organotypic tissues after induction. COX activity was similar in skin, EPI-200 and NHEK cells, but was significantly lower in immortalized keratinocytes. Hence, the 3D model EPI-200 might represent a more suitable model for dermatotoxicological studies. Altogether, these data help to better understand skin metabolism and expand the knowledge of in vitro alternatives used for dermatotoxicity testing.Abbreviations: CYP, cytochrome P450-monooxygenase; COX, cyclooxygenase; PGE 2, prostaglandin E2; 3-MC, 3-methylcholanthrene; EPI-200, reconstituted epidermis model EpiDermÔ (MatTek); NHEK, normal human keratinocytes; HLM, human liver microsomes.

In general, xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes (XMEs) are expressed in lower levels in the extrahepatic tissues than in the liver, making the former less relevant for the clearance of xenobiotics. Local metabolism, however, may lead to tissue-specific adverse responses, e.g. organ toxicities, allergies or cancer. This review summarizes the knowledge on the expression of phase I and phase II XMEs and transporters in extrahepatic tissues at the body's internal-external interfaces. In the lung, CYPs of families 1, 2, 3 and 4 and epoxide hydrolases are important phase I enzymes, while conjugation is less relevant. In skin, phase I-related enzymatic reactions are considered less relevant. Predominant skin XMEs are phase II enzymes, whereby glucuronosyltransferases (UGT) 1, glutathione-S-transferase (GST) and N-acetyltransferase (NAT) 1 are important for detoxification. The intestinal epithelium expresses many transporters and phase I XME with high levels of CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 and phase II metabolism is mainly related to UGT, NAT and Sulfotransferases (SULT). In the kidney, conjugation reactions and transporters play a major role for excretion processes. In the bladder, CYPs are relevant and among the phase II enzymes, NAT1 is involved in the activation of bladder carcinogens. Expression of XMEs is regulated by several mechanisms (nuclear receptors, epigenetic mechanisms, microRNAs). However, the understanding why XMEs are differently expressed in the various tissues is fragmentary. In contrast to the liver - where for most XMEs lower expression is demonstrated in early life - the XME ontogeny in the extrahepatic tissues remains to be investigated.

No abstract

Skin exposure to sensitizing chemicals can induce allergic reactions. Certain chemicals, so called pro-sensitizers, need metabolic activation to become allergenic. Their metabolic activation occurs in skin cells such as keratinocytes or dendritic cells. These cell types are also incorporated into dermal in vitro test systems used to assess the sensitizing potential of chemicals for humans. In vitrosystems range from single cell cultures to organotypic multi-cellular reconstructed skin models. Until now, their metabolic competence to unmask sensitizing potential of pro-sensitizers was rarely investigated. This review aims to summarize current information on available skin in vitro models and the relevance of xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes for the activation of pro-sensitizers such as eugenol, 4-allylanisole, and ethylendiamine. Among others, these chemicals are discussed as performance standards to validate new coming in vitro systems for their potential to identify pro-sensitizers.

No abstract