Introduction of a methoxymethyl side chain into p-phenylenediamine attenuates its sensitizing potency and reduces the risk of allergy induction

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2013.11.016Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Methoxymethyl side chain in p-phenylenediamine reduces its strong skin sensitizing properties.

  • Reduced protein reactivity and dendritic cell activation.

  • Reduced skin sensitizing potency in local lymph node assay (LLNA).

  • Negligible allergy induction risk under hair dye usage conditions.

Abstract

The strong sensitizing potencies of the most important primary intermediates of oxidative hair dyes, p-phenylenediamine (PPD) and p-toluylenediamine (PTD, i.e. 2-methyl-PPD) are well established. They are considered as the key sensitizers in hair dye allergic contact dermatitis. While modification of their molecular structure is expected to alter their sensitizing properties, it may also impair their color performance. With introduction of a methoxymethyl side chain we found the primary intermediate 2-methoxymethyl-p-phenylenediamine (ME-PPD) with excellent hair coloring performance but significantly reduced sensitizing properties compared to PPD and PTD: In vitro, ME-PPD showed an attenuated innate immune response when analyzed for its protein reactivity and dendritic cell activation potential. In vivo, the effective concentration of ME-PPD necessary to induce an immune response 3-fold above vehicle control (EC3 value) in the local lymph node assay (LLNA) was 4.3%, indicating a moderate skin sensitizing potency compared to values of 0.1 and 0.17% for PPD and PTD, respectively. Finally, assessing the skin sensitizing potency of ME-PPD under consumer hair dye usage conditions through a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) indicated an allergy induction risk negligible compared to PPD or PTD.

Introduction

Oxidation hair dyeing with the p-amino aromatic compound p-phenylenediamine (PPD) has a long tradition (Corbett, 1999). This key primary intermediate is still used in many permanent hair dye products based on its excellent color performance. Following oxidation of the primary intermediate by hydrogen peroxide, color performance is dependent on the high degree of reactivity of its oxidized form with couplers to form dimeric and trimeric reaction products within a short period of time (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS, 2010b)).

Apart from the excellent hair coloring property PPD is well known as the most important allergen associated with hair dye-related allergic contact dermatitis reviewed in (Goebel et al., 2012, Krasteva et al., 2009). Historically, introduction of a side chain into the PPD molecule in the 2 position was studied to assess if the skin sensitizing properties can be modulated while keeping the coloring performance. Successful attempts regarding performance were the 2-methylderivative p-toluylenediamine (PTD) and to a lesser degree the 2-hydroxyethyl derivative hydroxyethyl-PPD (HE-PPD). However, no major reduction of the sensitizing potency was found: based on maximized potency data derived from skin sensitization tests such as the local lymph node assay (LLNA), PTD and PPD are both categorized as extreme sensitizers, while HE-PPD is categorized as strong sensitizer (SCCS, 2013a).

Advancements in understanding the mechanistic steps underlying skin sensitization revealed in the case of pre-haptens, such as PPD, that oxidation, epidermal bioavailability, protein reactivity, and dendritic cell (DC) activation are critical parameters (Aeby et al., 2009, Jenkinson et al., 2009, McFadden et al., 2011). In addition, aromatic amine hair dyes are known to undergo enzymatic N-acetylation in the skin (Goebel et al., 2009, Kawakubo et al., 2000, Nohynek et al., 2005) and N-acetylation of PPD was shown to prevent skin sensitization in the LLNA (Aeby et al., 2009).

Therefore, in the present paper we asked how introduction of a methoxymethyl side chain into PPD, resulting in 2-methoxymethyl-p-phenylenediamine (ME-PPD), impacts the skin sensitizing properties including skin metabolism.

For this purpose, we investigated a) the bioavailability and the metabolic fate using human skin ex vivo, b) the reactivity towards protein using the peptide reactivity assay in the presence and absence of an oxidizing system (Gerberick et al., 2009) and c) the ability to activate THP-1 cells, used as surrogate DCs, for the expression of the costimulatory molecule CD86 (Migdal et al., 2013, Yoshida et al., 2003).

In the LLNA we further assessed, how the interplay of the individual mechanistic steps analyzed is related to specific T lymphocyte recognition and proliferation, because the magnitude and vigor of the proliferative response induced determine the extent to which skin sensitization will be acquired (Kimber et al., 2011). Thus, we determined the skin sensitizing potency of ME-PPD by calculating the EC3 value (concentration necessary to induce a 3-fold increase above the vehicle control) representing the threshold for the induction of skin sensitization, referred to as the non expected skin sensitization induction level (NESIL).

Finally we applied a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) approach for hair dyes (Goebel et al., 2012) to determine if usage of ME-PPD in hair dye products may be associated with the risk to induce skin sensitization by comparing the skin sensitizing potency (NESIL) with the measured exposure level (MEL) of the skin following a typical hair coloring application.

Section snippets

Material and methods

Analytical standards of all mono and di-acetylated derivatives, parent compounds as well as the hair color formulations used for the ex-vivo skin studies were from the Procter and Gamble Service GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany. All other chemicals were of the highest grade from Sigma Aldrich. Radioactive ME-PPD [ring-U-14C]ME-PPD-sulfate with a specific activity of 20 mCi·mmol-1 was used (GE-Healthcare, Cardiff, UK).

Determination of skin exposure and metabolic fate of ME-PPD

An experimental design with frozen pig skin samples was used to determine the relevant actual skin exposure to ME-PPD following standard use conditions of oxidative hair dyeing referred to as the measured exposure level (MEL) in the context of skin sensitization, i.e., the ME-PPD amounts remaining on/in the skin surface (i.e. Stratum corneum) following the rinsing step and the bioavailable amounts (i.e. viable skin and receptor fluid) (Goebel et al., 2010). A MEL of 8.75 μg/cm2 was found when we

Discussion

In the present paper, we asked how modifying the side chain structure of PPD impacted the skin sensitizing properties of the resulting 2-methoxymethyl-p-phenylenediamine (ME-PPD). For this purpose, we characterized how ME-PPD passes through the key stages of the innate immune response, namely skin exposure (MEL), epidermal bioavailability and metabolism, protein reactivity, and dendritic cell activation in comparison to the commonly used hair dye primary intermediates PPD and PTD as benchmarks.

Conflict of interest

Carsten Goebel, Helga Rothe, John Troutman, Harald Schlatter and Frank Gerberick are employees of a company selling cosmetic products including hair colorants. The hair dye ingredients studied in this paper are currently used in commercial products marketed by this company. Brunhilde Blömeke and Jenny Hennen participated as study directors and experts in skin sensitization. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper. The manuscript is the joint work of the

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Pia König for expert technical support.

References (48)

  • Y. Nukada et al.

    Prediction of skin sensitization potency of chemicals by human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT) and an attempt at classifying skin sensitization potency

    Toxicol. Vitro

    (2012)
  • H. Sakaguchi et al.

    Development of an in vitro skin sensitization test using human cell lines; human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT). II. An inter-laboratory study of the h-CLAT

    Toxicol. Vitro

    (2006)
  • H. Sakaguchi et al.

    Predicting skin sensitization potential and inter-laboratory reproducibility of a human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT) in the European Cosmetics Association (COLIPA) ring trials

    Toxicol. Vitro

    (2010)
  • J.J.M. van de Sandt et al.

    In vitro predictions of skin absorption of caffeine, testosterone, and benzoic acid: a multi-centre comparison study

    Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.

    (2004)
  • Y. Yoshida et al.

    Evaluation of the skin sensitization potential of chemicals using expression of co-stimulatory molecules, CD54 and CD86, on the naive THP-1 cell line

    Toxicol. Vitro

    (2003)
  • A.O. Aptula et al.

    Chemical mechanisms for skin sensitization by aromatic compounds with hydroxy and amino groups

    Chem. Res. Toxicol.

    (2009)
  • T. Ashikaga et al.

    A comparative evaluation of in vitro skin sensitisation tests: the human cell-line activation test (h-CLAT) versus the local lymph node assay (LLNA)

    Altern. Lab. Anim.

    (2010)
  • D.A. Basketter et al.

    Updating the skin sensitization in vitro data assessment paradigm in 2009

    J. Appl. Toxicol.

    (2009)
  • D.A. Basketter et al.

    The skin sensitization potential of resorcinol: experience with the local lymph node assay

    Contact Dermatitis

    (2007)
  • B. Blömeke et al.

    Elicitation response characteristics to mono- and to N, N′-diacetyl-para-phenylenediamine

    Contact Dermatitis

    (2008)
  • T. Delaine et al.

    Skin sensitization of epoxyaldehydes: importance of conjugation

    Chem. Res. Toxicol.

    (2013)
  • J. Eilstein et al.

    Synthesis and reactivity toward nucleophilic amino acids of 2,5-[13C]-dimethyl-p-benzoquinonediimine

    Chem. Res. Toxicol.

    (2006)
  • S.P. Felter et al.

    A review of the scientific basis for uncertainty factors for use in quantitative risk assessment for the induction of allergic contact dermatitis

    Contact Dermatitis

    (2002)
  • P.S. Friedmann

    The relationships between exposure dose and response in induction and elicitation of contact hypersensitivity in humans

    Br. J. Dermatol.

    (2007)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text