One article on PainSci cites Roberts 2008: Does Epsom Salt Work?
original abstract †Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.
Skin sensitisation is an important toxicological endpoint. The possibility that chemicals used in the workplace and in consumer products might cause skin sensitisation is a major concern for individuals, for employers and for marketing. In European REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals) legislation, the sensitising potential should therefore be assessed for chemicals below the 10 ton threshold. Development of methods for prediction of skin sensitisation potential without animal testing has been an active research area for some time, but has received further impetus with the advent of REACH and the EU Cosmetics Directive (EU 2003). This paper addresses the issue of non-animal based prediction of sensitisation by a mechanistic approach. It is known that the sequence of molecular, biomolecular and cellular events between exposure to a skin sensitiser and development of the sensitised state involves several stages, in particular penetration through the stratum corneum, covalent binding to carrier protein, migration of Langerhans cells, presentation of the antigen to naïve T-cells. In this paper each of these stages is considered with respect to the extent to which it is dependent on the chemical properties of the sensitiser. The evidence suggests that, although penetration of the stratum corneum, stimulation of migration and maturation of Langerhans cells, and antigen recognition are important events in the induction of sensitisation, except in certain specific circumstances they can be taken for granted. They are not important factors in determining whether a compound will be a sensitiser or not, nor are they important factors in determining how potent one sensitiser will be relative to another. The ability to bind covalently to carrier protein is the major structure-dependent determinant of skin sensitisation potential. A chemistry-based prediction strategy is proposed involving reaction mechanistic domain assignment, reactivity and hydrophobicity determination, and application of quantitative mechanistic modelling (QMM) or read-across.
- “The 500 Dalton rule for the skin penetration of chemical compounds and drugs,” J D Bos and M M Meinardi, Exp Dermatol, 2000.
- “What determines skin sensitization potency-myths, maybes and realities. Part 1. The 500 molecular weight cut-off,” David W Roberts, Ovanes G Mekenyan, Sabcho D Dimitrov, and Gergana D Dimitrova, Contact Dermatitis, 2013.
This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights:
- Photobiomodulation therapy is not better than placebo in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Guimarães 2021 Pain.
- No effect of creatine monohydrate supplementation on inflammatory and cartilage degradation biomarkers in individuals with knee osteoarthritis. Cornish 2018 Nutr Res.
- The CANBACK trial: a randomised, controlled clinical trial of oral cannabidiol for people presenting to the emergency department with acute low back pain. Bebee 2021 Med J Aust.
- Relationships Between Sleep Quality and Pain-Related Factors for People with Chronic Low Back Pain: Tests of Reciprocal and Time of Day Effects. Gerhart 2017 Ann Behav Med.
- Modulation in the elastic properties of gastrocnemius muscle heads in individuals with plantar fasciitis and its relationship with pain. Zhou 2020 Sci Rep.