| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 1998 Oxford University Press
other |
Use of the Mouse Intranasal Test (MINT) to Determine the Allergenic Potency of Detergent Enzymes: Comparison to the Guinea Pig Intratracheal (GPIT) Test1
The Procter & Gamble Company, Miami Valley Laboratories Cincinnati, Ohio 45253
Received September 19, 1997; accepted February 6, 1998
A mouse intranasal test (MINT) was developed to determine the relative allergenicity of detergent enzymes. In this simple method, various doses of the enzymes are administered in a detergent matrix, via intranasal instillation, on days 1, 3, and 10, with serum samples collected on day 15. The sera are then analyzed for enzyme specific IgG1 antibody by an antigen specific enzyme immunoassay. The protease enzyme Alcalase (protease Subtilisin Carlsberg) has been used as a benchmark enzyme for development and characterization of the model. The objective of the current studies was to obtain potency comparisons with other protease and nonprotease enzymes and to begin to assess the validity of the model by comparison with potency determinations obtained with the guinea pig intratracheal (GPIT) test. The range of potencies detected among several enzymes of different classes was approximately 60-fold (compared with Alcalase). Modification of the dosing regimen to permit slightly more extended dosing did not change the relative potency determination. Comparison of data from the MINT and GPIT methods indicate that both the mouse and the guinea pig recognize the bacterial amylase Tennamyl and a fungal exocellulase as more potent than Alcalase, a serine protease (Subtilisin B) and a fungal 
-amylase (Fungamyl) as less potent than Alcalase, and the serine protease, Savinase, as equivalent to Alcalase. Also, these data are in alignment with clinical data on the prevalence of occupational enzyme sensitization. Given the simplicity and low cost of the MINT method compared with the GPIT test, these results support continued development of the method as an alternative approach for assessing the allergenicity of enzymes.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. P. Holsapple, D. Jones, T. T. Kawabata, I. Kimber, K. Sarlo, M. K. Selgrade, J. Shah, and M. R. Woolhiser Assessing the Potential to Induce Respiratory Hypersensitivity Toxicol. Sci., May 1, 2006; 91(1): 4 - 13. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Stickler, N. Rochanayon, O. J. Razo, J. Mucha, W. Gebel, N. Faravashi, R. Chin, S. Holmes, and F. A. Harding An In Vitro Human Cell-Based Assay to Rank the Relative Immunogenicity of Proteins Toxicol. Sci., February 1, 2004; 77(2): 280 - 289. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Cullinan, S. Tarlo, and B. Nemery The prevention of occupational asthma Eur. Respir. J., November 1, 2003; 22(5): 853 - 860. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Sarlo, J. S. Parris, E. D. Clark, P. A. Horn, M. K. Robinson, J. A. McCay, V. L. Peachee, Y. L. Veloso, and K. L. White Jr. Influence of MHC Background on the Antibody Response to Detergent Enzymes in the Mouse Intranasal Test Toxicol. Sci., December 1, 2000; 58(2): 299 - 305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. D. J. Huby, R. J. Dearman, and I. Kimber Why Are Some Proteins Allergens? Toxicol. Sci., June 1, 2000; 55(2): 235 - 246. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|