Advanced search
Publication Cover
Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology Volume 30, 2011 - Issue 2
Submit an article Journal homepage
239
Views
7
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Guinea pig sensitization assays: An experimental comparison of three methods

Bobeck S. ModjtahediDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco. 90 Medical Center way Surge 110, PO BOX 0989 San Francisco, California 95143-0989
,
Christopher R. FortenbachDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco. 90 Medical Center way Surge 110, PO BOX 0989 San Francisco, California 95143-0989
,
Joseph G. MarsanoDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco. 90 Medical Center way Surge 110, PO BOX 0989 San Francisco, California 95143-0989
,
Aaron M. GandhiDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco. 90 Medical Center way Surge 110, PO BOX 0989 San Francisco, California 95143-0989
,
Robert StaabDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco. 90 Medical Center way Surge 110, PO BOX 0989 San Francisco, California 95143-0989
&
Howard I. MaibachDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco. 90 Medical Center way Surge 110, PO BOX 0989 San Francisco, California 95143-0989Correspondence[email protected]
, MD
Pages 129-137 | Received 10 Sep 2010, Accepted 26 Nov 2010, Published online: 26 Jan 2011

References

  • Magnusson B, Kligman AM. The identification of contact allergens by animal assay. The guinea pig maximization test. J Invest Dermatol 1969;52:268–276.
  • Maurer T, Arthur A, Bentley P. Guinea-pig contact sensitization assays. Toxicology 1994;93:47–54.
  • Klecak G. Identification of contact allergens: Predictive tests in animals. In: Marzulli FN, Maibach HI (eds), Dermatotoxicology and Pharmacology. New York: Halsted Press, Division of John Wiley & Sons, 1977, pp. 305–340.
  • Fahr H, Noster U, Schulz KH. Comparison of guinea pig sensitization methods. Contact Derm 1976;2:335–339.
  • Buehler EV. Delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Arch Dermatol 1965;91:171–177.
  • Marzulli FN, Zhai H, Maibach HI, Wilhelm K-P. Marzulli and Maibach’s Dermatotoxicology, 7th edn. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2008.
  • Maibach HI. Animal Models in Dermatology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1975.
  • Bruynzeel DP, Maibach HI. Excited skin syndrome (angry back). Arch Dermatol 1986;122:323–328.
  • Basketter D, Blaikie L, Reynolds F. The impact of atopic status on a predictive human test of skin irritation potential. Contact Derm 1996;35:33–39.
  • Nakamura Y, Higaki T, Kato H, Kishida F, Kogiso S, Isobe N et al. A quantitative comparison of induction and challenge concentrations inducing a 50% positive response in three skin sensitization tests; the guinea pig maximization test, adjuvant and patch test and Buehler test. J Toxicol Sci 1999;24:123–131.
  • Frankild S, Vølund A, Wahlberg JE, Andersen KE. Comparison of the sensitivities of the Buehler test and the guinea pig maximization test for predictive testing of contact allergy. Acta Derm Venereol 2000;80:256–262.
  • Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. Contact allergy: predictive testing in man. Contact Derm 1976;2:1–17.
  • Maurer T, Thomann P, Weirich EG, Hess R. Predictive evaluation in animals of the contact allergenic potential of medically important substances. II. Comparison of different methods of cutaneous sensitization with “weak” allergens. Contact Derm 1979;5:1–10.
  • Mirshahpanah P, Maibach HI. Relationship of patch test positivity in a general versus an eczema population. Contact Derm 2007;56:125–130.
  • Uter W, Ludwig A, Balda BR, Schnuch A, Pfahlberg A, Schäfer T et al. The prevalence of contact allergy differed between population-based and clinic-based data. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:627–632.
  • Thyssen JP, Uter W, Schnuch A, Linneberg A, Johansen JD. 10-year prevalence of contact allergy in the general population in Denmark estimated through the CE-DUR method. Contact Derm 2007;57:265–272.
  • Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Gefeller O; IVDK study group. Epidemiology of contact allergy: an estimation of morbidity employing the clinical epidemiology and drug-utilization research (CE-DUR) approach. Contact Derm 2002;47:32–39.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.