Stratum corneum biomarkers after in vivo repeated exposure to sub-erythemal dosages of ultraviolet radiation in unprotected and sunscreen (SPF 50+) protected skin.
biomarkers
skin cancer
stratum corneum
sunscreen
urocanic acid
Journal
Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine
ISSN: 1600-0781
Titre abrégé: Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9013641
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
revised:
16
06
2021
received:
22
12
2020
accepted:
04
07
2021
pubmed:
20
7
2021
medline:
15
1
2022
entrez:
19
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is a need for non-invasive biomarkers to assess in vivo efficacy of protective measures aiming at reducing ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure. Stratum corneum (SC) biomarkers showed to be promising markers for internal UVR dose and immune response. To establish a dose-response relationship for SC biomarkers and explore their suitability for in vivo assessment of the blocking effect of two sunscreens with a high sun protection factor (SPF) (50+). Twelve volunteers were exposed to a broad-spectrum UVB (280-320 nm), five times a week, during one week. Unprotected back skin was irradiated with 0.24, 0.48, 0.72 and 1.44 standard erythema dose (SED) and sunscreen-protected skin with 3.6 SED. SC samples for determination of the relative amount of cis-urocanic acid (cUCA) and thirteen immunological makers including cytokines and matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) were collected after each irradiation. cUCA sharply increased after the first irradiation in a dose-dependent fashion. However, it levelled-off after subsequent exposures and reached a plateau for the highest UV-dose after the third irradiation. None of the immunological markers showed dose-dependency. However, MMP-9, IL-1β and CCL27 increased gradually from baseline during repetitive exposures to the highest UV-dose. Assessed from cUCA, both sunscreens blocked >98% of the applied UV-dose. cUCA is a sensitive, non-invasive marker of the internal UVR dose enabling in vivo assessment of the blocking effect of high SPF sunscreens in the UVB-region. Immunological SC markers show low sensitivity in detecting immune response at sub-erythemal UVR dosages, suggesting they might be suitable only at higher and/or repetitive UVR exposure.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is a need for non-invasive biomarkers to assess in vivo efficacy of protective measures aiming at reducing ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure. Stratum corneum (SC) biomarkers showed to be promising markers for internal UVR dose and immune response.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To establish a dose-response relationship for SC biomarkers and explore their suitability for in vivo assessment of the blocking effect of two sunscreens with a high sun protection factor (SPF) (50+).
METHODS
METHODS
Twelve volunteers were exposed to a broad-spectrum UVB (280-320 nm), five times a week, during one week. Unprotected back skin was irradiated with 0.24, 0.48, 0.72 and 1.44 standard erythema dose (SED) and sunscreen-protected skin with 3.6 SED. SC samples for determination of the relative amount of cis-urocanic acid (cUCA) and thirteen immunological makers including cytokines and matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) were collected after each irradiation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
cUCA sharply increased after the first irradiation in a dose-dependent fashion. However, it levelled-off after subsequent exposures and reached a plateau for the highest UV-dose after the third irradiation. None of the immunological markers showed dose-dependency. However, MMP-9, IL-1β and CCL27 increased gradually from baseline during repetitive exposures to the highest UV-dose. Assessed from cUCA, both sunscreens blocked >98% of the applied UV-dose.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
cUCA is a sensitive, non-invasive marker of the internal UVR dose enabling in vivo assessment of the blocking effect of high SPF sunscreens in the UVB-region. Immunological SC markers show low sensitivity in detecting immune response at sub-erythemal UVR dosages, suggesting they might be suitable only at higher and/or repetitive UVR exposure.
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Sunscreening Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
60-68Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung
ID : 5103
Organisme : Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung
ID : 0278
Informations de copyright
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
John SM, Trakatelli M, Gehring R, et al. CONSENSUS REPORT: Recognizing non-melanoma skin cancer, including actinic keratosis, as an occupational disease-a call to action. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30(Suppl. 3):38-45.
Global Burden of Disease Cancer C, Fitzmaurice C, Abate D. et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 29 cancer groups. 1990 to 2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(12):1749-1768.
Bauer A, Diepgen TL, Schmitt J. Is occupational solar ultraviolet irradiation a relevant risk factor for basal cell carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the epidemiological literature. Br J Dermatol. 2011;165(3):612-625.
Schmitt J, Haufe E, Trautmann F, et al. Is ultraviolet exposure acquired at work the most important risk factor for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma? Results of the population-based case-control study FB-181. Br J Dermatol. 2018;178(2):462-472.
Schmitt J, Haufe E, Trautmann F, et al. Occupational UV-exposure is a major risk factor for basal cell carcinoma: results of the population-based case-control study FB-181. J Occup Environ Med. 2018;60(1):36-43.
Schmitt J, Seidler A, Diepgen TL, Bauer A. Occupational ultraviolet light exposure increases the risk for the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Dermatol. 2011;164(2):291-307.
Ziehfreund S, Schuster B, Zink A. Primary prevention of keratinocyte carcinoma among outdoor workers, the general population and medical professionals: a systematic review updated for 2019. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33(8):1477-1495.
Duffy SA, Hall SV, Tan A, Waltje AH, Cooper SA, Heckman CJ. The sun solutions intervention for operating engineers: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2018;27(8):864-873.
Loden M, Beitner H, Gonzalez H, et al. Sunscreen use: controversies, challenges and regulatory aspects. Br J Dermatol. 2011;165(2):255-262.
Mayer JA, Slymen DJ, Clapp EJ, et al. Promoting sun safety among US Postal Service letter carriers: impact of a 2-year intervention. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(3):559-565.
Naylor MF, Boyd A, Smith DW, Cameron GS, Hubbard D, Neldner KH. High sun protection factor sunscreens in the suppression of actinic neoplasia. Arch Dermatol. 1995;131(2):170-175.
van Praag MC, Roza L, Boom BW, et al. Determination of the photoprotective efficacy of a topical sunscreen against UVB-induced DNA damage in human epidermis. J Photochem Photobiol B. 1993;19(2):129-134.
Sheeran P, Goldstein AO, Abraham C, et al. Reducing exposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun and indoor tanning: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2020;39(7):600-616.
McKenzie RBM, Diaz D, et al. Rationalizing nomenclature for UV doses and effects on humans. Technical Report. International Commission on Illumination (CIE) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 2014. https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:239586&datastreamId=FULL-TEXT.PDF
Seite S, Fourtanier A, Moyal D, Young AR. Photodamage to human skin by suberythemal exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation can be attenuated by sunscreens: a review. Br J Dermatol. 2010;163(5):903-914.
Syring F, Weigmann HJ, Schanzer S, Meinke MC, Knorr F, Lademann J. Investigation of model sunscreen formulations comparing the sun protection factor, the universal sun protection factor and the radical formation ratio. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2016;29(1):18-23.
Fajuyigbe D, Young AR. The impact of skin colour on human photobiological responses. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2016;29(6):607-618.
Cole C, Appa Y, Ou-Yang H. A broad spectrum high-SPF photostable sunscreen with a high UVA-PF can protect against cellular damage at high UV exposure doses. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2014;30(4):212-219.
Ishitsuka Y, Masunaga T, Koide C, Arakane K. Repeated irradiation with suberythemal ultraviolet B reduces the number of epidermal Langerhans cells. Arch Dermatol Res. 2003;295(4):155-159.
Phillips TJ, Bhawan J, Yaar M, Bello Y, Lopiccolo D, Nash JF. Effect of daily versus intermittent sunscreen application on solar simulated UV radiation-induced skin response in humans. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000;43(4):610-618.
Young AR, Orchard GE, Harrison GI, Klock JL. The detrimental effects of daily sub-erythemal exposure on human skin in vivo can be prevented by a daily-care broad-spectrum sunscreen. J Invest Dermatol. 2007;127(4):975-978.
Keurentjes AJ, Jakasa I, John SM, et al. Tape stripping the stratum corneum for biomarkers of ultraviolet radiation exposure at sub-erythemal dosages: a study in human volunteers. Biomarkers. 2020;25(6):490-497.
Gibbs NK, Tye J, Norval M. Recent advances in urocanic acid photochemistry, photobiology and photoimmunology. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2008;7(6):655-667.
Johnson KE, Wilgus TA. Multiple roles for VEGF in non-melanoma skin cancer: angiogenesis and beyond. J Skin Cancer. 2012;2012:483439.
Landeck L, Jakasa I, Dapic I, et al. The effect of epidermal levels of urocanic acid on 25-hydroxyvitamin D synthesis and inflammatory mediators upon narrowband UVB irradiation. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2016;32(4):214-223.
Lawrence KP, Douki T, Sarkany RPE, Acker S, Herzog B, Young AR. The UV/Visible radiation boundary region (385-405 nm) damages skin cells and induces "dark" cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers in human skin in vivo. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):12722.
Odorisio T, Cianfarani F, Failla CM, Zambruno G. The placenta growth factor in skin angiogenesis. J Dermatol Sci. 2006;41(1):11-19.
Poon TS, Barnetson RS, Halliday GM. Prevention of immunosuppression by sunscreens in humans is unrelated to protection from erythema and dependent on protection from ultraviolet a in the face of constant ultraviolet B protection. J Invest Dermatol. 2003;121(1):184-190.
Fitzpatrick TB. The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI. Arch Dermatol. 1988;124(6):869-871.
ISO/CIE. Erythema reference action spectrum and standard erythema dose. Joint ISO/CIE Standard S 007/E-1998. In IOfSCId ed. CIE Standard. Vienna, Austria: Commission Internationale de l'Éclairage; 1998.
McKinlay F, Diffey BL. Reference action spectrum for ultraviolet induced erythema in human skin. CIE-Journal. 1987:6(1):17-22.
Farr PM, Besag JE, Diffey BL. The time course of UVB and UVC erythema. J Invest Dermatol. 1988;91(5):454-457.
Farr PM, Diffey BL. The vascular response of human skin to ultraviolet radiation. Photochem Photobiol. 1986;44(4):501-507.
COLIPA. International Sun Protection Factor (SPF) Test Method. The European Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association (COLIPA). 2006.
ISO 24444. Cosmetics - Sun protection test methods - In vivo determination of the sun protection factor (SPF). 2010.
Hulshof L, Hack DP, Hasnoe QCJ, et al. A minimally invasive tool to study immune response and skin barrier in children with atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2019;180(3):621-630.
Dapic I, Jakasa I, Yau NLH, Kezic S, Kammeyer A. Evaluation of an HPLC method for the determination of natural moisturizing factors in the human stratum corneum. Anal Lett. 2013;46(14):2133-2144.
van der Molen RG, Out-Luiting C, Driller H, Claas FH, Koerten HK, Mommaas AM. Broad-spectrum sunscreens offer protection against urocanic acid photoisomerization by artificial ultraviolet radiation in human skin. J Invest Dermatol. 2000;115(3):421-426.
Krien PM, Moyal D. Sunscreens with broad-spectrum absorption decrease the trans to cis photoisomerization of urocanic acid in the human stratum corneum after multiple UV light exposures. Photochem Photobiol. 1994;60(3):280-287.
Olivarius FD, Wulf HC, Crosby J, Norval M. Sunscreen protection against cis-urocanic acid production in human skin. Acta Derm-Venereol. 1999;79(6):426-430.
McLoone P, Simics E, Barton A, Norval M, Gibbs NK. An action spectrum for the production of cis-urocanic acid in human skin in vivo. J Invest Dermatol. 2005;124(5):1071-1074.
Jones CD, Barton AK, Crosby J, Norval M, Gibbs NK. Investigating the red shift between in vitro and in vivo urocanic acid photoisomerization action spectra. Photochem Photobiol. 1996;63(3):302-305.
McKenzie R, Smale D, Kotkamp M. Relationship between UVB and erythemally weighted radiation. Photoch Photobio Sci. 2004;3(3):252-256.
Bustamante M, Hernandez-Ferrer C, Tewari A, et al. Dose and time effects of solar-simulated ultraviolet radiation on the in vivo human skin transcriptome. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182(6):1458-1468.
Kelly DA, Seed PT, Young AR, Walker SL. A commercial sunscreen's protection against ultraviolet radiation-induced immunosuppression is more than 50% lower than protection against sunburn in humans. J Invest Dermatol. 2003;120(1):65-71.