Search

The detection of cadmium ions using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) has been reported by several research groups. Because cadmium ions are too small to stimulate the immune system, high molecular weight immunogens of cadmium are constructed using bifunctional chelators. At present, the most commonly used bifunctional chelator for the preparation of antigens for heavy metal ions is 1-(4-isothiocyanobenzyl) ethylenediamine N,N,N',N'-tetraacetic acid (ITCBE). However, the price of ITCBE is high. So we are interested in a cheaper bifunctional chelator, 1-(4-aminobenzyl) ethylenediamine N,N,N',N'-tetraacetic acid (aminobenzyl-EDTA). Here, cadmium ions were conjugated to carrier proteins using aminobenzyl-EDTA to make artificial antigens. Then, several mice were immunized with the antigen. And monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) against cadmium were produced. Spleen cells of immunized mice were fused with myeloma cells. The resulting hybridomas were screened using protein conjugates which were covalently bound to metal-free EDTA or cadmium. Three hybridoma cell lines (A3, E4 and B5) that produced MAbs with high selectivity and sensitivity were expanded for further study. Cross-reactivities with other metals were below 1 %. These antibodies were used to construct competitive ELISAs. The IC50 for A3 was 8.4 μg/l. The detection range and the lowest detection limit using the antibody A3 was 0.394-64.39 and 0.051 μg/l, respectively. Spike-recovery studies in tap water showed that the antibody A3 could be used for cadmium detection in drinking water.

Chickens injected subcutaneously at one day of age with oil-in-water emulsions of the nonioinic block polymer T150R1 developed higher titres to sheep erythrocytes and killed Brucella abortus than did untreated chickens when they were immunised with the antigens one and two weeks later. The increase was IgM only. Cell-mediated immunity was not affected as measured by blastogenic responses. Morphometric analysis of tissue sections of bursae of Fabricius suggested the polymers were stimulating more rapid migration of B cells to peripheral organs.

Background: In the last few years, adverse reactions to mydriatic eyedrops have been investigated. However, is not still available a standardized protocol, capable of identify the pathogenetic mechanism. In the light of these findings we have evaluated the reliability of a protocol with well established concentration of specific allergens., Methods: The diagnostic method includes the application of patch test series Gruppo Italiano Ricerca Dermatiti da Contatto e Ambientali (GIRDCA), medicaments, corticosteroids, local anesthetics, main eyedrops' excipients, pure active principles and extemporaneous preparations with mydriatic eyewashes. At the same time, skin prick test with a solution of atropine sulfate at 1 per thousand and an intradermal test with injection of atropine at 0.01 per thousand were carried out., Results: After patch tests were removed, we detected seven positiveness to the phenylephrine, two to the benzalkonium chloride, one to thiomersal, one to the ethylendiamine and one to the atropine sulfate 1 per thousand. With intradermal tests we obtained three positiveness in patients who reported adverse reactions to atropine., Conclusions: Our results show that phenylephrine is frequently responsible for allergic conjunctivitis (53.8%). In the case of atropine, even though the limited number of patients suggests to perform more extensive studies, it emerges that our diagnostic protocol is safe and might be able to screen allergic reactions in the field of ophthalmopathies.

Intravenous preparations combining aminophylline and a steroid are used frequently in the treatment of bronchial asthma attacks. However, anaphylactoid reactions to such preparations have been rarely observed. We report the case of a 31-year-old man with aminophylline and steroid allergy. Aminophylline is the ethylenediamine salt of theophylline. In our patient, aminophylline, ethylenediamine and various steroids were found to be positive in the intradermal test. The challenge test with intravenous aminophylline was positive, while that with oral theophylline was negative. Ethylenediamine is used in everyday products such as shellacs and rubber products. In the case of our patient, his asthma worsened following the remodelling of his restaurant. Occupational asthma due to exposure to ethylenediamine is also discussed.

We present a patient who experienced an immediate adverse reaction following intravenous administration of aminophylline. Skin prick, intradermal, and patch tests, RAST and indirect ELISA assays with aminophylline, theophylline and ethylenediamine were negative. A positive histamine release test was found only with ethylenediamine. Single-blind placebo-controlled challenges were positive with aminophylline and negative with theophylline. Our results suggest the reaction was a type I hypersensitivity reaction to ethylenediamine, but a nonimmune mechanism could not be excluded.

The sensitization capacity of ethylenediamine was examined by the guinea pig maximization test and compared with dinitrochlorobenzene. Ethylenediamine was found to be a potent sensitizer. An attempt at oral induction of unresponsiveness (tolerance) was unsuccessful with ethylenediamine and DNCB and the same negative result was obtained with intravenous injection of ethylenediamine. Only by the intravenous injection of dinitrobenzene sulfonic acid was unresponsiveness successfully established in 90% of the guinea pigs.

Predictive tests are of value in forecasting the response of a population to a sensitizer; diagnostic testing is used to determine what substances may actually be producing dermatologic problems. Skin sensitization predictive and diagnostic data for the eleven most frequently encountered skin sensitizers in Western Europe, Canada and the United States are reviewed. These compounds include two drugs (benzocaine and neomycin), two cosmetic ingredients (p-phenylenediamine and balsam of Peru), four preservatives (formaldehyde, ethylenediamine, parabens and mercurials) and three ingredients of wearing apparel (nickel, chromium and thiram). Many of the data were collected by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group and the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group on tests with 1,200 and 4,825 dermatologic patients, respectively; the remainder were obtained by individual investigators with smaller groups of subjects. The data obtained by various investigators are discussed in relation to the factors which affect the extent and degree of sensitization which they can cause.

542 patients (330 women, 212 men) with suspected allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested to standard series allergens between January 1983 and June 1987. Positive reactions were most frequently seen with nickel (17.4%), ethylenediamine (8.7%), formaldehyde (7.4%), colophony (7.0%), potassium dichromate (6.1%) and neomycin (5.7%). Patients with dermatitis involving the legs were significantly more likely to be allergic to ethylenediamine (p = 0.01) and benzocaine (p = 0.04) than those with dermatitis not involving the legs. Neomycin allergy was not associated with dermatitis involving the legs. Patients allergic to ethylenediamine were significantly more likely to be allergic to neomycin than patients not allergic to ethylenediamine (p = 0.002).

A sodium salt of ethylenediaminetetraacetate (Na3EDTA) and ethylenediamine (EDA) were subjected to a repeated insult patch test on Hartley albino guinea pigs (10 per compound). All guinea pigs (10 of 10) receiving EDA were sensitized. None of the guinea pigs (0 of 10) was sensitized to Na3 EDTA. Likewise, none of the guinea pigs sensitized to EDA reacted positively when challenged with Na3 EDTA. Based on these results, it is concluded that EDTA is not likely to be a sensitizer to humans, and would not likely cross-sensitize with EDA. In addition, the presence of very small amounts of the sodium salts of EDTA in cosmetic and pharmaceutical preparations does not represent an appreciable risk of human skin sensitization.

Comparison of the TRUE Test patch test system with the chamber system recommended by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group showed concordance of results in 98% of tests with nickel, epoxy resin, and ethylenediamine dihydrochloride. Also, a panel of 12 TRUE Test screening allergens tested on 128 patients showed no irritant reactions but did show 46 positive responses of varying intensity. The TRUE Test is a promising alternative to current methods and offers the advantages of easy application and factory quality control.

A consecutive series of 1544 patients and 137 patients in occupational contact with epoxy resins were tested with ethylenediamine and/or triethylenetetramine; some were tested with diethylenetriamine. Guinea pigs sensitized to triethylenetetramine were tested with ethylenediamine and diethylenetriamine. The results showed that cross-reactions may occur between triethylenetetramine and ethylenediamine, although the majority of the patients were sensitized to only one of the compounds.

Six workers with a diagnosis of occupational asthma and one with chronic bronchitis were examined for sensitivity to epoxy resin systems and certain of their components. In six cases the chemical agent responsible for their symptoms was identified by careful inhalation challenge testing, simulating their exposure at work and thus providing a precise aetiological diagnosis. In one worker asthma followed exposure to triethylene tetramine fume; four were sensitive to acid anhydrides, three to phthalic acid anhydride as a fume or powder and one to trimellitic anhydride. On worker thought to be sensitive to toluene di-isocyanate gave negative reactions to this and positive reactions to a phthalic acid anhydride epoxy resin and another thought to have asthma from acid anhydride fumes was found to be sensitive only to toluene di-isocyanate. Immediate, non-immediate or combined asthmatic reactions were elicited.

Adverse reactions to aminophylline are usually manifested by the toxic effects of theophylline on the gastrointestinal, cardiac, and central nervous systems. Reactions to its ethylenediamine component are less commonly encountered. We present here a patient who experienced severe exfoliative erythroderma after intravenous administration of aminophylline. Our investigations suggested that the reaction was a cell-mediated hypersensitivity to ethylenediamine.

Two male employees in an industry producing plastic emulsions acquired contact dermatitis from preservatives. One was sensitized to both components in a preservative, i.e. 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one and ethylene diamine. The other man acquired a contact allergy to 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one and to another preservative, formaldehyde.

32 ethylenediamine-sensitive patients were studied to determine cross-sensitivity reactions. Reaction to other aliphatic polyamines proved to be very high, whereas no significant result was obtained to antihistamines, either topically or orally.