Gene profiling reveals a contact allergy signature in most positive Amerchol L-101 patch test reactions.
Amerchol L-101
allergic contact dermatitis
contact allergy
irritant contact dermatitis
irritant reaction
lanolin
patch testing
transcriptomic profiling
Journal
Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2022
Jul 2022
Historique:
revised:
19
01
2022
received:
11
10
2021
accepted:
07
02
2022
pubmed:
21
2
2022
medline:
15
6
2022
entrez:
20
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Diagnosis of contact allergy (CA) to Amerchol L-101 (AL-101), a marker for lanolin allergy, is problematic. Positive patch test reactions are frequently doubtful or weakly positive and difficult to associate with clinical relevance. To gain further insight on the allergic or irritant nature of skin reactions induced by AL-101 patch test. We re-tested in a dose-response fashion, 10 subjects with AL-101 CA and performed comprehensive transcriptomic analysis (gene arrays, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction [qRT-PCR]) of samples of their skin reactions. Eight of the 10 CA subjects reacted positively upon re-test, whereas two did not react. Most of AL-101 positive patch tests expressed an allergy signature with strong activation of gene modules associated with adaptive immunity and downregulation of cornification pathway genes. In addition, the breadth of gene modulation correlated with the magnitude of patch test reactions and the concentration of AL-101 applied. However, we observed that some of the positive patch test reactions to AL-101 expressed no/few allergy biomarkers, suggesting the induction of an irritant skin inflammation in these samples. This study confirms that AL-101 is an allergen that can cause both contact allergy and contact irritation. Our results also highlight that molecular profiling might help to strengthen clinical diagnosis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Diagnosis of contact allergy (CA) to Amerchol L-101 (AL-101), a marker for lanolin allergy, is problematic. Positive patch test reactions are frequently doubtful or weakly positive and difficult to associate with clinical relevance.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To gain further insight on the allergic or irritant nature of skin reactions induced by AL-101 patch test.
METHODS
METHODS
We re-tested in a dose-response fashion, 10 subjects with AL-101 CA and performed comprehensive transcriptomic analysis (gene arrays, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction [qRT-PCR]) of samples of their skin reactions.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Eight of the 10 CA subjects reacted positively upon re-test, whereas two did not react. Most of AL-101 positive patch tests expressed an allergy signature with strong activation of gene modules associated with adaptive immunity and downregulation of cornification pathway genes. In addition, the breadth of gene modulation correlated with the magnitude of patch test reactions and the concentration of AL-101 applied. However, we observed that some of the positive patch test reactions to AL-101 expressed no/few allergy biomarkers, suggesting the induction of an irritant skin inflammation in these samples.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study confirms that AL-101 is an allergen that can cause both contact allergy and contact irritation. Our results also highlight that molecular profiling might help to strengthen clinical diagnosis.
Substances chimiques
Allergens
0
Irritants
0
Lanolin
8006-54-0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
40-52Subventions
Organisme : HudFonden
Informations de copyright
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Schlossman ML, McCarthy JP. Lanolin and derivatives chemistry: relationship to allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1979;5(2):65-72. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1979.tb04801.x
Matthieu L, Dockx P. Discrepancy in patch test results with wool wax alcohols and Amerchol L-101. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;36(3):150-151. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1997.tb00398.x
Lee B, Warshaw E. Lanolin allergy: history, epidemiology, responsible allergens, and management. Dermatitis. 2008;19(2):63-72.
Loden M, Maibach HI. Dry Skin and Moisturizers: Chemistry and Function. CRC Press; 1999.
Wakelin SH, Smith H, White IR, Rycroft RJ, McFadden JP. A retrospective analysis of contact allergy to lanolin. Br J Dermatol. 2001;145(1):28-31. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2133.2001.04277.x
Warshaw EM, Nelsen DD, Maibach HI, et al. Positive patch test reactions to lanolin: cross-sectional data from the north american contact dermatitis group, 1994 to 2006. Dermatitis. 2009;20(2):79-88.
Miest RYN, Yiannias JA, Chang YHH, Singh N. Diagnosis and prevalence of lanolin allergy. Dermatitis. 2013;24(3):119-123. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e3182937aa4
Fransen M, Overgaard LEK, Johansen JD, Thyssen JP. Contact allergy to lanolin: temporal changes in prevalence and association with atopic dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78(1):70-75. doi:10.1111/cod.12872
Kligman AM. Lanolin allergy: crisis or comedy. Contact Dermatitis. 1983;9(2):99-107. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1983.tb04314.x
Matiz C, Jacob SE. The lanolin paradox revisited. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64(1):197. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2010.07.047
Knijp J, Bruynzeel DP, Rustemeyer T. Diagnosing lanolin contact allergy with lanolin alcohol and Amerchol L101. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80(5):298-303. doi:10.1111/cod.13210
Geier J, Uter W, Pirker C, Frosch PJ. Patch testing with the irritant sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is useful in interpreting weak reactions to contact allergens as allergic or irritant. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48(2):99-107. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2003.480209.x
Geier J, Uter W, Lessmann H, Schnuch A. The positivity ratio--another parameter to assess the diagnostic quality of a patch test preparation. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48(5):280-282. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2003.00033.x
Lefevre MA, Nosbaum A, Rozieres A, et al. Unique molecular signatures typify skin inflammation induced by chemical allergens and irritants. Allergy. 2021;76(12):3697-3712. doi:10.1111/all.14989
Fregert S. Fregert S. Manual of Contact Dermatitis. 2nd ed. Munksgaard, Copenhagen: Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc; 1981. Chapter 10, Patch Testing; pp. 71-81. Accessed June 16, 2021. google scholar
Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, et al. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing - recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(4):195-221. doi:10.1111/cod.12432
Huber W, von Heydebreck A, Sültmann H, Poustka A, Vingron M. Variance stabilization applied to microarray data calibration and to the quantification of differential expression. Bioinformatics. 2002;18(Suppl 1):S96-S104. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/18.suppl_1.s96
Talloen W, Clevert DA, Hochreiter S, et al. I/NI-calls for the exclusion of non-informative genes: a highly effective filtering tool for microarray data. Bioinformatics. 2007;23(21):2897-2902. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm478
Irizarry RA, Hobbs B, Collin F, et al. Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics. 2003;4(2):249-264. doi:10.1093/biostatistics/4.2.249
Pinheiro JC, Bates DJ, DebRoy S, Sakar D. The Nlme Package: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models, R Version 3 Vol 6; CRAN.R-project; 2012.
Lenth RV. Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. J Stat Soft. 2016;69(1):1-33. doi:10.18637/jss.v069.i01
Bauer S, Gagneur J, Robinson PN. GOing Bayesian: model-based gene set analysis of genome-scale data. Nucl Acids Res. 2010;38(11):3523-3532. doi:10.1093/nar/gkq045
Fregert S, Dahlquist I, Trulsson L. An attempt to isolate and identify allergens in lanolin. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;10(1):16-19. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1984.tb00054.x
Gollhausen R, Przybilla B, Ring J. Reproducibility of patch tests. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21(6):1196-1202. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(89)70329-7
Hindsén M, Bruze M, Christensen OB. Individual variation in nickel patch test reactivity. Am J Contact Dermat. 1999;10(2):62-67. doi:10.1016/s1046-199x(99)90001-5
Masjedi K, Bruze M, Hindsén M, Minang J, Ahlborg N. Is the variability of nickel patch test reactivity over time associated with fluctuations in the systemic T-cell reactivity to nickel? Br J Dermatol. 2009;161(1):102-109. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09182.x
Rosholm Comstedt L, Engfeldt M, Svedman C, Åkesson A, Hindsén M, Bruze M. Variation and covariation in patch test reactivity to palladium and nickel salts. Eur J Dermatol. 2018;28(5):668-676. doi:10.1684/ejd.2018.3423
Siemund I, Mowitz M, Zimerson E, Bruze M, Hindsén M. Variation in aluminium patch test reactivity over time. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77(5):288-296. doi:10.1111/cod.12836
Engfeldt M, Tillman C, Hindsén M, Bruze M. Variability in patch test reactivity over time, falsely indicating patch test sensitization, in a patient tested with palladium salts. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67(2):109-111. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2012.02086.x
Svedman C, Engfeldt M, Api AM, et al. A pilot study aimed at finding a suitable eugenol concentration for a leave-on product for use in a repeated open application test. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66(3):137-139. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.02041.x
Hauksson I, Pontén A, Gruvberger B, Isaksson M, Engfeldt M, Bruze M. Skincare products containing low concentrations of formaldehyde detected by the chromotropic acid method cannot be safely used in formaldehyde-allergic patients. Br J Dermatol. 2016;174(2):371-379. doi:10.1111/bjd.14241
Bruze M, Engfeldt M, Ofenloch R, et al. Validation of a questionnaire algorithm based on repeated open application testing with the constituents of fragrance mix I. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182(4):955-964. doi:10.1111/bjd.18224
Bruze M, Engfeldt M, Elsner P, et al. Validation of questionnaire algorithm based on repeated open application testing with the constituents of fragrance mix II: the EDEN fragrance study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021;35(8):1692-1701. doi:10.1111/jdv.17315
Bruze M. Seasonal influence on routine patch test results. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;14(3):184. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1986.tb01206.x
Carmichael AJ, Foulds IS, Bransbury DS. Loss of lanolin patch test positivity. Br J Dermatol. 1991;125(6):573-576. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.1991.tb14797.x
Edman B, Möller H. Testing a purified lanolin preparation by a randomized procedure. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;20(4):287-290. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1989.tb03147.x
Fortino V, Wisgrill L, Werner P, et al. Machine-learning-driven biomarker discovery for the discrimination between allergic and irritant contact dermatitis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(52):33474-33485. doi:10.1073/pnas.2009192117
Dhingra N, Shemer A, Correa da Rosa J, et al. Molecular profiling of contact dermatitis skin identifies allergen-dependent differences in immune response. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134(2):362-372. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2014.03.009
Löffler H, Becker D, Brasch J, Geier J. German contact dermatitis research group (DKG). Simultaneous sodium lauryl sulphate testing improves the diagnostic validity of allergic patch tests. Results from a prospective multicentre study of the German contact dermatitis research group (deutsche Kontaktallergie-Gruppe, DKG). Br J Dermatol. 2005;152(4):709-719. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2004.06465.x
Uldahl A, Engfeldt M, Svedman C. Clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to lanolin- a ROAT study. Contact Dermatitis. 2021;84(1):41-49. doi:10.1111/cod.13689
Quaranta M, Knapp B, Garzorz N, et al. Intraindividual genome expression analysis reveals a specific molecular signature of psoriasis and eczema. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(244):244ra90. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3008946