Cinnamyl alcohol oxidizes rapidly upon air exposure.

BACKGROUND: Cinnamyl alcohol and cinnamal are frequent fragrance contact allergens. Both are included in the European baseline fragrance mix I, which is used for screening of contact allergy in dermatitis patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the autoxidation of cinnamyl alcohol and to identify the oxidation products formed on air exposure. We also wanted to evaluate the effect of autoxidation on the sensitization potency of cinnamyl alcohol. METHODS: Samples of commercially available cinnamyl alcohol with and without purification were exposed to air, and the autoxidation was followed by chemical analysis. The analysis was performed with mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Sensitization potencies of compounds were determined with the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) in mice. RESULTS: Chemical analysis showed that the concentration of cinnamyl alcohol in the air-exposed samples decreased rapidly over time, and that autoxidation products were formed. Cinnamal, epoxy cinnamyl alcohol and cinnamic acid were identified as oxidation products. According to our study, cinnamal and epoxy cinnamyl alcohol were the first autoxidation products formed. The epoxy cinnamyl alcohol was shown to be the oxidation product with the highest sensitization potency. The analysis of our samples of commercially available cinnamyl alcohol showed that there was already a content of 1.5% cinnamal at the start of the autoxidation experiments. CONCLUSION: Cinnamyl alcohol readily autoxidizes upon air exposure, and forms strong sensitizers as determined by the LLNA. Cinnamal was formed in the largest amounts, showing that cinnamal is not only formed via bioactivation, as has previously been shown. A highly sensitizing epoxide was also identified and quantified in the oxidation mixture.

Patch testing for food-associated allergies in orofacial granulomatosis.

BACKGROUND: Food-associated allergies, especially to benzoates and cinnamon-related compounds, have been associated with orofacial granulomatosis and both standard and urticarial patch testing have been used to detect such allergies. Elimination diets have also been shown to be effective in some patients. OBJECTIVES: To compare the results of standard and urticarial patch testing in a cohort of patients with orofacial granulomatosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of 120 cases seen in two hospitals were retrieved and examined for patch test details. RESULTS: Standard patch testing was much less likely to detect allergy to benzoates and cinnamon compounds (7%) than urticarial tests (55%). All urticarial tests that were positive had shown a reaction by 60 min. CONCLUSIONS: Both standard and urticarial patch tests are required to detect food allergies in orofacial granulomatosis. The difficulties of patient self-recording of urticarial tests can be eliminated by retaining patients in the testing unit for professional reading of patches at 60 min.

High-resolution transcriptional profiling of chemical-stimulated dendritic cells identifies immunogenic contact allergens, but not prohaptens.

Allergic contact dermatitis is a complex syndrome and knowledge about the in vitro detection of small-molecular-weight compounds, particularly prohaptens, is limited. Therefore, we investigated chemical-induced gene expression changes in human antigen-presenting cells upon stimulation with immunogenic contact allergens, prohaptens and irritants. Monocyte-derived dendritic cells (moDCs) and THP-1 cells were stimulated with the prohapten cinnamic alcohol (CAlc), the hapten cinnamic aldehyde (CAld), an irritant and an obligatory sensitizer in vitro. Whole-genome screening and consecutive PCR analysis of differential gene expression in moDCs stimulated with either CAld or the obligatory sensitizer revealed coregulation of 11 marker genes which were related to immunological reactions (IL-8, CD1e, CD200R1, PLA2G5, TNFRSF11A), oxidative or metabolic stress responses (AKR1C3, SLC7A11, GCLM) or other processes (DPYLS3, TFPI, TRIM16). In contrast, the prohapten CAlc and the irritant did not change marker gene expression. In THP-1 cells, CAld and the positive control elicited similar expression changes in only 4 of the previously identified genes (IL-8, TRIM16, CD200R1, GCLM). In conclusion, we provide important insights into the pathophysiological basis of allergic contact dermatitis, identify marker genes suitable for skin hazard assessment and demonstrate that contact-allergenic prohaptens escape in in vitro detection if their skin metabolism is not taken into account.