Search

Cinnamaldehyde and cinnamaldehyde-derived compounds are candidates for the development of anticancer drugs that have received extensive research attention. In this review, we summarize recent findings detailing the positive and negative aspects of cinnamaldehyde and its derivatives as potential anticancer drug candidates. Furthermore, we describe the in vivo pharmacokinetics and metabolism of cinnamaldehydes. The oxidative and antioxidative properties of cinnamaldehydes, which contribute to their potential in chemotherapy, have also been discussed. Moreover, the mechanism(s) by which cinnamaldehydes induce apoptosis in cancer cells have been explored. In addition, evidence of the regulatory effects of cinnamaldehydes on cancer cell invasion and metastasis has been described. Finally, the application of cinnamaldehydes in treating various types of cancer, including breast, prostate, and colon cancers, has been discussed in detail. The effects of cinnamaldehydes on leukemia, hepatocellular carcinoma, and oral cancer have been summarized briefly. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Activation of TRPM8 and TRPA1 receptors generates cold and cold pain sensations, respectively, and is presumably important in clinical pain manifestations, such as cold hyperalgesia. This study investigated the interaction between TRPM8 and TRPA1 receptors through stimulation of glabrous human skin (volar forearm) by topical administration of 40% L-menthol and 10% trans-cinnamaldehyde (CA), individually and in combination., Methods: Sensory manifestations were assessed in 10 healthy volunteers via a platform of 11 quantitative sensory (thermal and mechanical stimuli) and vasomotor tests (skin temperature, perfusion and axon-reflex-flare) in a double-blinded randomized crossover design., Results: Cold pain threshold was increased (p < 0.01, cold allodynia) by L-menthol alone and L-menthol + CA in combination but unaffected by CA. Mechanical pain threshold was significantly decreased (mechanical hyperalgesia) by all three substances (p < 0.01), with a significant intergroup difference found between CA alone and the less decreased L-menthol + CA (p < 0.05). Application of CA alone and L-menthol + CA in combination showed an increase in skin temperature and perfusion significantly larger than that induced by L-menthol alone (p < 0.05). An axon-reflex-flare was present after CA administration, but was significantly reduced upon addition of L-menthol (p < 0.01)., Conclusion: This study elucidates the potential of L-menthol as a counter-irritant to secondary neurogenic inflammation and provides evidence of an intricate interplay between cold receptors TRPA1 and TRPM8, warranting further investigation of the neural coding of cold pain perception., (© 2014 European Pain Federation - EFIC®)

The possible functional role of transient receptor potential (TRP) channels was investigated by testing various TRP agonists and antagonists in an isolated rat sinus hair follicle preparation. Extracellular recordings from slowly adapting type II mechanoreceptor units were made. The antagonist capsazepine depressed spontaneous and mechanically evoked activity, with an IC(50) of 82 microM. In one-third of units, capsazepine caused a selective depression of mechanically evoked firing, such that the existing spontaneous firing was interrupted by an absence of activity during the mechanical stimulus. The broad spectrum TRP blocker ruthenium red (30 microM) had inconsistent effects, although in some units a delayed onset (following wash) bursting and paroxysmal firing ensued. The agonist icilin (50-100 microM) had an excitatory effect on spontaneous firing, and (-)-menthol (200 microM) had inconsistent effects. Cinnamaldehyde (1-2 mM) depressed all types of activity equally, mechanically evoked and spontaneous. Camphor (0.5-2 mM) also depressed all types of activity, although it had a preferential effect on spontaneous activity. Capsaicin (1-10 microM) and allyl isothiocyanate (50-100 microM) had no clear effects. These results rule out any role for TRPA1 and TRPV1 channels in mechanotransduction processes of slowly adapting type II mechanoreceptors.

Background and Purpose: The transient receptor potential ankyrin receptor 1 (TRPA1) is a cation channel, co-expressed with the pro-tussive transient receptor potential vanilloid type 1 (TRPV1) channel in primary sensory neurons. TRPA1 is activated by a series of irritant exogenous and endogenous alpha,beta-unsaturated aldehydes which seem to play a role in airway diseases. We investigated whether TRPA1 agonists provoke cough in guinea pigs and whether TRPA1 antagonists inhibit this response., Experimental Approach: Animals were placed in a Perspex box, and cough sounds were recorded and counted by observers unaware of the treatment used., Key Results: Inhalation of two selective TRPA1 agonists, allyl isothiocyanate and cinnamaldehyde, dose-dependently caused cough in control guinea pigs, but not in those with airway sensory nerves desensitized by capsaicin. Coughs elicited by TRPA1 agonists were reduced by non-selective (camphor and gentamicin) and selective (HC-030031) TRPA1 antagonists, whereas they were unaffected by the TRPV1 antagonist, capsazepine. Acrolein and crotonaldehyde, two alpha,beta-unsaturated aldehydes recently identified as TRPA1 stimulants and contained in cigarette smoke, air pollution or produced endogenously by oxidative stress, caused a remarkable tussive effect, a response that was selectively inhibited by HC-030031. Part of the cough response induced by cigarette smoke inhalation was inhibited by HC-030031, suggesting the involvement of TRPA1., Conclusions and Implications: A novel pro-tussive pathway involves the TRPA1 channel, expressed by capsaicin-sensitive airway sensory nerves and is activated by a series of exogenous (cigarette smoke) and endogenous irritants. These results suggest TRPA1 may be a novel target for anti-tussive medicines.

Unlabelled: A new fragrance mix (FM II), with 6 frequently used chemicals not present in the currently used fragrance mix (FM I), was evaluated in 6 dermatological centres in Europe, as previously reported. In this publication, test results with the individual constituents and after repeated open application test (ROAT) of FM II are described. Furthermore, cosmetic products which had caused a contact dermatitis in patients were analysed for the presence of the individual constituents. In 1701 patients, the individual constituents of the medium (14%) and the highest (28%) concentration of FM II were simultaneously applied with the new mix at 3 concentrations (break-down testing for the lowest concentration of FM II (2.8%) was performed only if the mix was positive). ROAT was performed with the concentration of the FM II which had produced a positive or doubtful (+ or ?+) patch test reaction. Patients' products were analysed for the 6 target compounds by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS)., Results: 50 patients (2.9%) showed a positive reaction to 14% FM II and 70 patients (4.1%) to 28% FM II. 24/50 (48%) produced a positive reaction to 1 or more of the individual constituents of 14% FM II and 38/70 (54.3%) to 28% FM II, respectively. If doubtful reactions to individual constituents are included, the break-down testing was positive in 74% and 70%, respectively. Patients with a positive reaction to 14% FM II showed a higher rate of reactions to the individual constituent of the 28% FM II: 36/50 (72%). Positive reactions to individual constituents in patients negative to FM II were exceedingly rare. If doubtful reactions are regarded as negative, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the medium concentration of FM II towards at least 1 individual constituent was 92.3% (exact 95% confidence interval 74.9-99.1%), 98.4% (97.7-99.0%), 48% (33.7-62.6%) and 99.9% (99.6-"100.0%), respectively. For the high concentration, the figures were very similar. The frequency of positive reactions to the individual constituents in descending order was the same for both FM II concentrations: hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral) > citral > farnesol > citronellol > alpha-hexyl-cinnamic aldehyde (AHCA). No unequivocally positive reaction to coumarin was observed. Lyral) was the dominant individual constituent, with positive reactions in 36% of patients reacting to 14% FM II and 37.1% to 28% FM II. 5/11 patients developed a positive ROAT after a median of 7 days (range 2-10). The 5 patients with a doubtful or negative reaction to 28% FM II were all ROAT negative except 1. There were 7 patients with a certain fragrance history and a positive reaction to either 28% or 14% FM II but a negative reaction to FM I. Analysis with GC-MS in a total of 24 products obtained from 12 patients showed at least 1-5 individual constituents per product: Lyral (79.2%), citronellol (87.5%), AHCA (58.3%), citral (50%) and coumarin (50%). The patients were patch test positive to Lyral, citral and AHCA. In conclusion, patients with a certain fragrance history and a negative reaction to FM I can be identified by FM II. Testing with individual constituents is positive in about 50% of cases reacting to either 14% or 28% FM II.

The currently used 8% fragrance mix (FM I) does not identify all patients with a positive history of adverse reactions to fragrances. A new FM II with 6 frequently used chemicals was evaluated in 1701 consecutive patients patch tested in 6 dermatological centres in Europe. FM II was tested in 3 concentrations - 28% FM II contained 5% hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral), 2% citral, 5% farnesol, 5% coumarin, 1% citronellol and 10%alpha-hexyl-cinnamic aldehyde; in 14% FM II, the single constituents' concentration was lowered to 50% and in 2.8% FM II to 10%. Each patient was classified regarding a history of adverse reactions to fragrances: certain, probable, questionable, none. Positive reactions to FM I occurred in 6.5% of the patients. Positive reactions to FM II were dose-dependent and increased from 1.3% (2.8% FM II), through 2.9% (14% FM II) to 4.1% (28% FM II). Reactions classified as doubtful or irritant varied considerably between the 6 centres, with a mean value of 7.2% for FM I and means ranging from 1.8% to 10.6% for FM II. 8.7% of the tested patients had a certain fragrance history. Of these, 25.2% were positive to FM I; reactivity to FM II was again dose-dependent and ranged from 8.1% to 17.6% in this subgroup. Comparing 2 groups of history - certain and none - values for sensitivity and specificity were calculated: sensitivity: FM I, 25.2%; 2.8% FM II, 8.1%; 14% FM II, 13.5%; 28% FM II, 17.6%; specificity: FM I, 96.5%; 2.8% FM II, 99.5%; 14% FM II, 98.8%; 28% FM II, 98.1%. 31/70 patients (44.3%) positive to 28% FM II were negative to FM I, with 14% FM II this proportion being 16/50 (32%). In the group of patients with a certain history, a total of 7 patients were found reacting to FM II only. Conversely, in the group of patients without any fragrance history, there were significantly more positive reactions to FM I than to any concentration of FM II. In conclusion, the new FM II detects additional patients sensitive to fragrances missed by FM I; the number of false-positive reactions is lower with FM II than with FM I. Considering sensitivity, specificity and the frequency of doubtful reactions, the medium concentration, 14% FM II, seems to be the most appropriate diagnostic screening tool.

Conducting a sound skin sensitization risk assessment prior to the introduction of new ingredients and products into the market place is essential. The process by which low-molecular-weight chemicals induce and elicit skin sensitization is dependent on many factors, including the ability of the chemical to penetrate the skin, react with protein, and trigger a cell-mediated immune response. Based on our chemical, cellular and molecular understanding of allergic contact dermatitis, it is possible to carry out a quantitative risk assessment. Specifically, by estimating the exposure to the allergen and its allergenic potency, it is feasible to assess quantitatively the sensitization risk of an ingredient in a particular product type. This paper focuses on applying exposure-based risk assessment tools to understanding fragrance allergy for 2 hypothetical products containing the fragrance allergen cinnamic aldehyde. The risk assessment process predicts that an eau de toilette leave-on product containing 1000 ppm or more cinnamic aldehyde would pose an unacceptable risk of induction of skin sensitization, while a shampoo, containing the same level of cinnamic aldehyde, would pose an acceptable risk of induction of skin sensitization, based on limited exposure to the ingredient from a rinse-off product application.

Adverse skin reactions cover many types of response: toxic, irritant, allergic, urticarial, sensory, etc. The relationships between an individual's tendency to develop different types of skin response are not well-described. We examined whether those who perceive stinging might be more likely to experience urticarial, sensory and irritation reactions in skin. A panel of 86 volunteers was tested with 10% lactic acid in the nasolabial fold to assess their ability to perceive stinging. At the same time, their capacity to develop non-immunologic contact urticaria was evaluated using chemicals of different structural type and urticant ability: methyl nicotinate, benzoic acid, cinnamic acid, cinnamaldehyde and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). DMSO was also used to assess sensory effects and skin irritation. 44 were classes as "stingers" and 42 as "non-stingers". The pattern of urticant reactivity in the stingers and non-stingers was essentially the same, with neat DMSO generating the strongest reactions in both groups. Sensory reactions to DMSO (stinging, itching, tingling or burning) were similar in stingers and non-stingers; although the former may have reacted more quickly, a smaller proportion reacted (64% versus 76%). The skin irritation response to DMSO was also identical in stingers and non-stingers and the intensity of the urticant response in an individual did not correlate with the intensity of their subsequent irritant reaction. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that an individual's ability to perceive skin stinging does not give a general indication of their susceptibility to other types of non-immunologic skin response. Indeed, there appeared to be little evidence of correlations between any of the skin effects studied.

The correct identification of potential skin sensitizers is an essential first step in enabling a proper risk assessment to be made and to permit the implementation of appropriate risk management practices designed to avoid the induction of sensitization. Consequently, regulatory guidelines around the world demand that new substances are evaluated to assess their skin sensitization potential. There are two guinea pig test methods which are generally recognised, the guinea pig maximisation test (GPMT) and the occluded patch test described by Buehler. In different countries, one procedure seems to be more prevalent and acceptable to regulatory authorities than the other. Notably, in the European Union, the latest revision of the Annex V (Directive 92/32/EC) Test Method for skin sensitization asks that justification should be given in the situation where the notifier does not use the GPMT, which is the preferred method. Thus in this paper, the validity of the Buehler protocol in the context of European legislation is critically examined. Results from two laboratories are collated, showing that the method can identify significant contact allergens, particularly those which would be registered formally as such according to European legislation. It is demonstrated that minor methodological variations can be tolerated without compromising test sensitivity, but it is recommended that suitable positive control testing is the best way to ensure proper test conduct.

Cinnamic aldehyde is an important fragrance material and contact allergen. The present study was performed to provide quantitative data on the eliciting capacity of cinnamic aldehyde, to be considered in assessment of clinical relevance and health hazard. The skin response to serial dilution patch tests and 6-week graded use tests with 0.02, 0.1 and 0.8% cinnamic aldehyde in ethanol was studied in a group of cinnamic-aldehyde-sensitive eczema patients. The minimum effect level demonstrated was 0.02% cinnamic aldehyde on patch testing and 0.1% cinnamic aldehyde on use testing, which are allowed usage concentrations in different kind of cosmetics. 72% (13/18) developed eczema in the use test performed with an alcoholic solution of cinnamic aldehyde on healthy upper arm skin. 6 of the 13 use-test-positive subjects (46%) reacted later than day 7, indicating that the standard exposure period of 7 days in use testing may not be sufficient, if low concentrations or volatile substances are used. A significant correlation between patch test sensitivity and the outcome of use testing was found (1,<0.001), which should be considered in designing future use test studies and advising patients. Detailed exposure information is needed to evaluate more fully the consequences of cinnamic aldehyde sensitivity.