In vitro Skin Irritation Assays: Relevance to Human Skin

References

• Draize J H, Woodard G, Calvery H O. Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. Division of Pharmacology, Food and Drug Administration. 1944
   Google Scholar
• Kastner D. Irritancy potential of cosmetic ingredients. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1977; 28: 741–754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrick E, Maibach H I. Comparison of the time course, dose response, and mediators of chemically induced skin irritation in three species. Current Topics in Contact Dermatitis, P J Frosch, et al. Springer-Verlag, New York 1989; 399–403
   Google Scholar
• Helman R G, Hall J W, Kao J Y. Acute dermal toxicity: In vivo and in vitro comparisons in mice. Fundam Appl Toxicol 1986; 7: 94–100
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oliver G J, Pemberton M A. An in vitro model for identifying skin-corrosive chemicals. I. Initial validation. Toxicol in Vitro 1988; 2: 7–17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SOT Position paper. Comments on the LD50 and acute eye and skin irritation tests. Fundam Appl Toxicol 1989; 13: 621–623
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gfeller W, Kobel W, Seifert G. Overview of animal test methods for skin irritation. Food Chem Toxicol 1985; 23: 165–168
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell E, Gay R, Swiderek M, et al. Use of fabricated living tissue and organ equivalents as defined higher order systems for the study of pharmacologic responses to test substances, Manuscript presented at the NATO advanced research workshop, Pharmaceutical Application of Cell and Tissue Culture to Drug Transport, 9/4/89-9/9/89
   Google Scholar
• Bagley D M, Rizva P Y, Kong B M, et al. An improved CAM assay for predicting ocular irritation potential. Alternative Methods in Toxicology, A M Goldberg. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc, New York 1988; Vol 6: 131–138
   Google Scholar
• Bloom E, Maibach H I, Tammi R. In vitro models for cutaneous effects of glucocorticoids using human skin organ and cell culture. Models Dermatology, H I Maibach, N J Lowe. Karger, New York 1989; Vol 4: 12–19
   Google Scholar
• Borenfreund E, Puerner J A. Toxicity determined in vitro by morphological alterations and neutral red absorption. Toxicol Lett 1985; 24: 119–124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borenfreund E, Puerner J A. A simple quantitative procedure using monolayer cultures for cytotoxicity assays. J Tissue Culture Methods 1984; 9: 7–9
   Google Scholar
• Bulich A A, Greene M W, Isenberg D L. Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment. Reliability of bacterial luminescence assay for determination of the toxicity of pure compounds and complex effluents. 4th Conference of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM 737), Philadelphia. D R Branson, K L Dickson. 1981; 338–347
   Google Scholar
• Gordon V C, Kelly C P, Bergman H C. Evaluation of “Skintex”, an in vitro method for determining dermal irritation. Toxicologist 1990; 10: 78
   Google Scholar
• Luepke N P, Kemper F H. The HET-CAM test: An alternative to the Draize eye test. Food Chem Toxicol 1986; 24: 495–496
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parce J W, Owicki J C, Kercso K M, et al. Detection of cell-affecting agents with silicon biosensor. Science 1989; 246: 243–247
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverman J. Preliminary findings on the use of protozoa (Tetrahymena thermophila) as models for ocular irritation testing rabbits. Lab Anim Sci 1983; 33: 56–58
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Silverman J, Pennist S. Evaluation of Tetrahymena thermophilia as an in vitro alternative to ocular irritation studies in rabbits. J Toxicol Cut Ocular Toxicol. 1987; 6: 33–42
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephens T J, Silber P M, Recce B, et al. “Testskin”: An in vitro model for detecting cytoxicity and inflammation. Toxicologist 1990; 10: 78
   Google Scholar
• Maibach H I, Lammintausta K, Berardesca E, Freeman S. Tendency to irritation. Sensitive skin. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989; 21: 833–835
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilhelm K P, Maibach H I. Factors predisposing to cutaneous irritation. Contact Dermatitis 1990; 8: 17–22
   Google Scholar
• Imokawa G. Comparative study on the mechanism of irritation by sulfate and phosphate type of anionic surfactants. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1980; 31: 45–66
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serban G P, Henry S M, Cotty V F, et al. In vivo evaluation of skin lotions by electrical capacitance: I. The effect of several lotions on the progression of damage and healing after repeated insult with sodium laurel sulfate. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1981; 32: 407–419
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blake-Haskins J C, Scala D, Rhein L D, et al. Predicting surfactant irritation from the swelling response of a collagen film. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1986; 37: 199–210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagao S, Stroud J D, Hamada T, et al. The effect of sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid on human epidermis: an EM study. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1972; 52: 11–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanerva L, Lauharanta J. Variable effects of irritants (Methylmethacrylate, Terphenyls, Dithranol, and Methylglyoxalbis-Guanylhydrazone) on the fine structure of the epidermis. Arch Toxicol 1986; 9: 455, Suppl
   Google Scholar
• Gibson W T, Teall M R. Interactions of C12 surfactants with the skin: Changes in enzymes and visible and histological features of rat skin treated with sodium laurel sulfate. Food Chem Toxicol 1983; 21: 587–593
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choman B R. Determination of the response of skin to chemical agents by an in vitro procedure. J Inv Dermatol 1963; 44: 177–182
   Google Scholar
• Malten K E. Thoughts on irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1981; 7: 238–247
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bason M M, Realica B, Gordon V, Maibach H I. In vitro correlation with human in vivo data of selected irritants, Submitted for publication
   Google Scholar