In the context of developing a new natural product-based cosmetic, the in vitro efficacy and safety evaluations of a complex botanical mixture based on Eugenia dysenterica leaf hydroalcoholic extract (EDE) (2.5-1000μg/mL) were carried out. Chromatographic analysis demonstrated the presence of the tannin (ellagic acid) and flavonoids (quercetin and gallic acid) which characterize the EDE as a polyphenol-rich mixture. Using HFF-1 fibroblasts, it was shown that EDE promoted cell regeneration after UVA exposure. It also led to the inhibition of the collagenase, elastase and tyrosinase enzymes, which are involved in skin-related disorders. In terms of toxicological evaluation, the EDE was classified as non-phototoxic through the 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test (OECD N° 432, 2004) and non-eye irritant by Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (OECD N° 437, 2013) assay, in conjunction with corneal histomorphometric analysis. Furthermore, the EDE has no skin sensitization potential as demonstrated by a two-out-of-three prediction model [protein-binding/haptenization (OECD N° 442C, 2015), keratinocyte and dendritic cell activations]. In addition, it was shown that the EDE seems to be non-genotoxic through the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay (OECD N° 487, 2014) using HepG2 cells. When considered together, these findings support the use of EDE botanical mixture in cosmetic/pharmaceutical products.

Voriconazole (VCZ), a triazole with a large spectrum of action is one of the most recommended antifungal agents as the first line therapy against several clinically important systemic fungal infections, including those by Candida albicans. This antifungal has moderate water solubility and exhibits a nonlinear pharmacokinetic (PK) profile. By entrapping VCZ into liposomes, it is possible to circumvent certain downsides of the currently available product such as a reduction in the rate of its metabolization into an inactive form, avoidance of the toxicity of the sulfobutyl ether-beta-cyclodextrin (SBECD), vehicle used to increase its solubility. PKs and biodistribution of VCZ modified by encapsulation into liposomes resulted in improved antifungal activity, due to increased specificity and tissue penetration. In this work, liposomal VCZ resulted in AUC0–24/MIC ratio of 53.51 ± 11.12, whereas VFEND® resulted in a 2.5-fold lower AUC0–24/MIC ratio (21.51 ± 2.88), indicating favorable antimicrobial systemic activity. VCZ accumulation in the liver and kidneys was significantly higher when the liposomal form was used. Protection of the drug from biological degradation and reduced rate of metabolism leads to a 30% reduction of AUC of the inactive metabolite voriconazole-N-oxide (VNO) when the liposomal drug was administered. Liposomal VCZ presents an alternative therapeutic platform, leading to a safe and effective treatment against systemic fungal infections.

This study evaluated the applicability of a modified Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) (OECD N° 442C, 2015) through the 10-fold reduction of reaction volume (micro-DPRA, mDPRA) for skin sensitization evaluation of six commercial glyphosate-containing formulations. In addition, another modification of DPRA was proposed by adding a UVA (5J/cm) irradiation step, namely photo-mDPRA, to better characterize (photo)sensitizer materials. The phototoxicity profile of pesticides was also evaluated using the 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test (3T3-NRU-PT) (OECD N° 432, 2004). The mDPRA could represent an environmentally acceptable test approach, since it reduces costs and organic waste. Peptide depletion was greater in photo-mDPRA and changed the reactivity class of each test material, in comparison to mDPRA. Thus, the association of mDPRA with photo-mDPRA was better for correctly characterizing human (photo)sensitizer substances and pesticides. In general, cysteine depletion was greater than that of lysine for all materials tested in both mDPRA and photo-mDPRA. Furthermore, while 3T3-NRU-PT is unable to predict (photo)sensitizers, it was capable of correctly identifying the phototoxic potential of the tested agrochemical formulations. In conclusion, mDPRA plus photo-mDPRA and 3T3-NRU-PT seem to be preliminary non-animal test batteries for skin (photo)sensitization/phototoxicity assessment of chemicals, agrochemical formulations and their ingredients.

Background Currently, considerable efforts to standardize methods for accurate assessment of properties and safety aspects of nanomaterials are being made. However, immunomodulation effects upon skin exposure to nanomaterial have not been explored. Objectives To investigate the immunotoxicity of single‐wall carbon nanotubes, titanium dioxide, and fullerene using the current mechanistic understanding of skin sensitization by applying the concept of adverse outcome pathway (AOP). Methods Investigation of the ability of nanomaterials to interact with skin proteins using the micro‐direct peptide reactivity assay; the expression of CD86 cell surface marker using the U937 cell activation test (OECD No. 442E/2018); and the effects of nanomaterials on modulating inflammatory response through inflammatory cytokine release by U937 cells. Results The nanomaterials easily internalized into keratinocytes cells, interacted with skin proteins, and triggered activation of U937 cells by increasing CD86 expression and modulating inflammatory cytokine production. Consequently, these nanomaterials were classified as skin sensitizers in vitro. Conclusions Our study suggests the potential immunotoxicity of nanomaterials and highlights the importance of studying the immunotoxicity and skin sensitization potential of nanomaterials to anticipate possible human health risks using standardized mechanistic nonanimal methods with high predictive accuracy. Therefore, it contributes toward the applicability of existing OECD (Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development) testing guidelines for accurate assessment of nanomaterial skin sensitization potential.

Background: Allergic contact dermatitis caused by henna-based hair-colouring products has been associated with adulteration of henna with p-phenylenediamine (PPD).Objectives: To develop a testing approach based on in vitro techniques that address key events within the skin sensitization adverse outcome pathway in order to evaluate the allergenic potential of hair-colouring products. Methods:The following in vitro assays were used to test the sensitizing capacity of hair dye ingredients: the micro-direct peptide reactivity assay (mDPRA); the HaCaT keratinocyte-associated interleukin (IL)-18 assay; the U937 cell line activation test (U-SENS)/IL-8 levels; the blood monocyte-derived dendritic cell test; and genomic allergen rapid detection (GARD skin). Those techniques with better human concordance were selected to evaluate the allergenic potential of 10 hair-colouring products.Results: In contrast to the information on the label, chromatographic analyses identified PPD in all products. The main henna biomarker, lawsone, was not detected in one of the 10 products. Among the techniques evaluated by testing hair dye ingredients, the mDPRA, the IL-18 assay, GARD skin and the U-SENS correlated better with human classification (concordances of 91.7%-100%) and were superior to the animal testing (concordance of 78.5%). Thus, these assays were used to evaluate haircolouring products, which were classified as skin sensitizers by the use of different two-of-three approaches.Conclusions: Our findings highlight the toxicological consequences of, and risks associated with, the undisclosed use of PPD in henna-based "natural" "real-life" products. K E Y W O R D Sallergic contact dermatitis, alternative methods, cosmetics, hair dyes, mixtures, skin sensitization