Chemical substances and contact allergy—244 substances ranked according to allergenic potency

Schlede, Eva; Aberer, Werner; Fuchs, Th.; Gerner, Ingrid; Lessmann, Holger; Maurer, T.; Rossbacher, R.; Stropp, G.; Wagner, E.; Kayser, D.

doi:10.1016/s0300-483x(03)00266-x

Cited by 56 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[24] A suspected case of contact dermatitis requires meticulous history taking and physical examination. [11] Typically, a sensitized individual will develop acute symptoms 12-24 h after any subsequent exposures. [6] Patch testing is used to demonstrate contact with the allergenic tulipaside A.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They were assigned to Category B: Solid-based indication for contact allergenic effects, because there is evidence of contact allergenic effects in animals and humans as well as induction of cross reactions in humans. [11] They can also be considered skin sensitizers because under The Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS), a human skin sensitizer is “a substance that will induce an allergic response following skin contact”. [1213]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tulipalin A induced phytotoxicity

McCluskey¹,

Bourgeois²,

Harbison³

2014

Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tulipalin A induced phytotoxicity is a persistent allergic contact dermatitides documented in floral workers exposed to Alstroemeria and its cultivars.[1] The causative allergen is tulipalin A, a toxic glycoside named for the tulip bulbs from which it was first isolated.[2] The condition is characterized by fissured acropulpitis, often accompanied by hyperpigmentation, onychorrhexis, and paronychia. More of the volar surface may be affected in sensitized florists. Dermatitis and paronychia are extremely common conditions and diagnostic errors may occur. A thorough patient history, in conjunction with confirmatory patch testing with a bulb sliver and tuliposide A exposure, can prevent misdiagnosis. We report a case of Tulipalin A induced phytotoxicity misdiagnosed as an unresolved tinea manuum infection in a patient evaluated for occupational exposure.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tulipalin A induced phytotoxicity

McCluskey¹,

Bourgeois²,

Harbison³

2014

Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…g According to ECETOC (2003). h According to Schlede et al (2003). Table 11 Compounds pre-selected for the study Tolerated chemicals, negative in the LLNA Irritants, may cause LN activation and acute skin reactions Contact allergens a Negative in DAE433 as vehicle.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An European inter-laboratory validation of alternative endpoints of the murine local lymph node assay

Ehling¹,

Hecht²,

Heusener³

et al. 2005

Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…56%). Another study (Golla et al, 2009) presented a QSAR model developed using a dataset compiled by the Federal Institute for Health Protection of Consumers and Veterinary Medicine (Schlede et al, 2003). The dataset was collected from clinical and experimental data on humans as well as animal tests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting chemically-induced skin reactions. Part I: QSAR models of skin sensitization and their application to identify potentially hazardous compounds

Alves

Muratov

Fourches

et al. 2015

Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repetitive exposure to a chemical agent can induce an immune reaction in inherently susceptible individuals that leads to skin sensitization. Although many chemicals have been reported as skin sensitizers, there have been very few rigorously validated QSAR models with defined applicability domains (AD) that were developed using a large group of chemically diverse compounds. In this study, we have aimed to compile, curate, and integrate the largest publicly available dataset related to chemically-induced skin sensitization, use this data to generate rigorously validated and QSAR models for skin sensitization, and employ these models as a virtual screening tool for identifying putative sensitizers among environmental chemicals. We followed best practices for model building and validation implemented with our predictive QSAR workflow using random forest modeling technique in combination with SiRMS and Dragon descriptors. The Correct Classification Rate (CCR) for QSAR models discriminating sensitizers from non-sensitizers were 71–88% when evaluated on several external validation sets, within a broad AD, with positive (for sensitizers) and negative (for non-sensitizers) predicted rates of 85% and 79% respectively. When compared to the skin sensitization module included in the OECD QSAR toolbox as well as to the skin sensitization model in publicly available VEGA software, our models showed a significantly higher prediction accuracy for the same sets of external compounds as evaluated by Positive Predicted Rate, Negative Predicted Rate, and CCR. These models were applied to identify putative chemical hazards in the ScoreCard database of possible skin or sense organ toxicants as primary candidates for experimental validation.

show abstract

Chemical substances and contact allergy—244 substances ranked according to allergenic potency

Cited by 56 publications

References 7 publications

Tulipalin A induced phytotoxicity

Tulipalin A induced phytotoxicity

An European inter-laboratory validation of alternative endpoints of the murine local lymph node assay

Predicting chemically-induced skin reactions. Part I: QSAR models of skin sensitization and their application to identify potentially hazardous compounds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About