The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development of a Peptide Reactivity Assay for Screening Contact Allergens
Abstract
Allergic contact dermatitis resulting from skin sensitization is a common occupational and environmental health problem. In recent years, the local lymph node assay (LLNA) has emerged as a practical option for assessing the skin sensitization potential of chemicals. In addition to accurate identification of skin sensitizers, the LLNA can also provide a reliable measure of relative sensitization potency; information that is pivotal in successful management of human health risks. However, even with the significant animal welfare benefits provided by the LLNA, there is still interest in the development of nonanimal test methods for skin sensitization testing. One characteristic of a chemical allergen is its ability to react with proteins prior to the induction of skin sensitization. The majority of chemical allergens is electrophilic and as such reacts with nucleophilic amino acids like cysteine or lysine. In order to determine if reactivity correlates with sensitization potential, 38 chemicals representing allergens of different potencies (weak to extreme) and nonsensitizers were evaluated for their ability to react with glutathione or three synthetic peptides containing either cysteine, lysine, or histidine. Following a 15-min reaction time for glutathione or a 24 h reaction period for the three synthetic peptides, the samples were analyzed by HPLC. UV detection was used to monitor the depletion of glutathione or the peptide following reaction. The results demonstrate that a significant correlation (Spearman correlation) exists between allergen potency and the depletion of glutathione (p = 0.001), lysine (p = 0.025), and cysteine (p = 0.020), but not histidine. The peptide with the highest sensitivity was cysteine (80.8%) whereas histidine was the least sensitive (11.5%). The data presented show that measuring peptide reactivity has utility for screening chemicals for their skin sensitization potency and thus potential for reducing our reliance on animal test methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Pearson, R. G. (1963) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja00905a001 · Cited by 10,475
Cited by
Allergy Diagnostic Testing: An Updated Practice Parameter
Bernstein, I. L., Li, J. T., Bernstein, D. I., Hamilton, R., Spector, S. L., Tan, R., Sicherer, S., Golden, D. B. K., Khan, D. A., Nicklas, R. A., et al. (2008) · Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology · doi:10.1016/s1081-1206(10)60305-5 · Cited by 723
Cottrez, F., Boitel, E., Ourlin, J.-C., Peiffer, J.-L., Fabre, I., Henaoui, I.-S., Mari, B., Vallauri, A., Paquet, A., Barbry, P., et al. (2016) · Toxicology in Vitro · doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2016.01.007 · Cited by 499
Assessing skin sensitization hazard in mice and men using non-animal test methods
Urbisch, D., Mehling, A., Guth, K., Ramirez, T., Honarvar, N., Kolle, S., Landsiedel, R., Jaworska, J., Kern, P. S., Gerberick, F., et al. (2015) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.12.008 · Cited by 398
Marx, U. (2016) · ALTEX · doi:10.14573/altex.1603161 · Cited by 295
Non-animal methods to predict skin sensitization (I): the Cosmetics Europe database
Hoffmann, S., Kleinstreuer, N., Alépée, N., Allen, D., Api, A. M., Ashikaga, T., Clouet, E., Cluzel, M., Desprez, B., Gellatly, N., et al. (2018) · Critical Reviews in Toxicology · doi:10.1080/10408444.2018.1429385 · Cited by 188
Metadata
- Authors
- Gerberick, G. F.
- Venue
- Toxicological Sciences
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-07-14
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 332-343
- ISSN
- 1096-0929 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2157971131
- Cited by
- 529
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development of a Peptide Reactivity Assay for Screening Contact Allergens. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/toxsci/kfh213
- The paper
- Gerberick, G. F. (2004). Development of a Peptide Reactivity Assay for Screening Contact Allergens. Toxicological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfh213
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.