Dermal Exposure to Cinnamaldehyde Alters Lymphocyte Subpopulations, Number of Interferon-γ-Producing Cells, and Expression of B7 Costimulatory Molecules and Cytokine Messenger RNAs in Auricular Lymph Nodes of B6C3F1 Mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although the Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) is efficient in identifying chemicals with sensitizing potential, there is increasing need for alternative end points. Cinnamaldehyde (CIN) was chosen for evaluation based on its moderate potency and extensive use in fragrance materials. Objectives: The purpose of the present studies is to incorporate some alternative end points, such as phenotypic analysis and cytokine production, into a modified LLNA/irritancy assay (IA) to evaluate the sensitization of female B6C3F1 mice to CIN. Methods: Several nontraditional end points, including the analysis of lymphocyte subpopulations, B7 costimulatory molecule and cytokine messenger RNA (mRNA) expression, and intracellular interferon-γ (IFN-γ) levels, were incorporated into a modified murine local lymph node (LLNA)/irritancy assay (IA) to evaluate the sensitization of female B6C3F1 mice to cinnamaldehyde (CIN). Results: The alternate end points used in these studies support the classification of CIN as a moderately potent sensitizer. Dermal treatment with CIN resulted in an increase in the percentage of B cells in the auricular lymph nodes (ALNs) and expression of the costimulatory molecule, B7-2, on B cells. Lymph node cells also showed increased transforming growth factor-β1, migration-inhibition factor, and mild increases in IFN-γ and interleukin-2 cytokine mRNA expression. Although the increase in IFN-γ mRNA expression did not translate into increased intracellular IFN-γ levels, the absolute number of T cells producing IFN-γ in the ALNs increased. Conversely, the MEST did not classify CIN as a contact allergen. Conclusion: The nontraditional end points used in the LLNA/IA were not as sensitive as the traditional radioisotope method used to assess cell proliferation. However, they may help identify compounds inappropriately classified as sensitizers or nonsensitizers by the LLNA and MEST.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".