Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34029376›Full record

ArticleContact dermatitis2021

Assessment of cytotoxicity and sensitization potential of intradermally injected tattoo inks in reconstructed human skin.

Joey J J P Karregat, Thomas Rustemeyer, Sebastiaan A S van der Bent, Sander W Spiekstra, Maria Thon, David Fernandez Rivas, Susan Gibbs

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contact dermatitis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
21.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Joey J J P KarregatDepartment of Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Thomas RustemeyerAcademic Tattoo Clinic Amsterdam, Department of Dermatology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sebastiaan A S van der BentAcademic Tattoo Clinic Amsterdam, Department of Dermatology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3380-4075
Sander W SpiekstraDepartment of Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Maria ThonDepartment of Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
David Fernandez RivasMesoscale Chemical Systems Group, MESA+ Institute and Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4329-3248
Susan GibbsDepartment of Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3446-6138
Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLAcademic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam · NLUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

H2020 European Research Council 851630
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of people within the European population having at least one tattoo has increased notably, and with it the number of tattoo-associated clinical complications. Despite this, safety information and testing regarding tattoo inks remain limited.

objectiveTo assess cytotoxicity and sensitization potential of 16 tattoo inks after intradermal injection into reconstructed human skin (RHS).

methodsCommercially available tattoo inks were injected intradermally into RHS (reconstructed epidermis on a fibroblast-populated collagen hydrogel) using a permanent makeup device. RHS biopsies, tissue sections, and culture medium were assessed for cytotoxicity (thiazolyl blue tetrazolium bromide assay [MTT assay]), detrimental histological changes (haematoxylin and eosin staining), and the presence of inflammatory and sensitization cytokines (interleukin [IL]-1α, IL-8, IL-18; enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay).

resultsVarying degrees of reduced metabolic activity and histopathological cytotoxic effects were observed in RHS after ink injection. Five inks showed significantly reduced metabolic activity and enhanced sensitization potential compared with negative controls. DISCUSSION: Using the RHS model system, four tattoo inks were identified as highly cytotoxic and classified as potential sensitizers, suggesting that allergic contact dermatitis could emerge in individuals carrying these inks. These results indicate that an RHS-based assessment of cytotoxicity and sensitization potential by intradermal tattoo ink injection is a useful analytical tool to determine ink-induced deleterious effects.

Indexed as

InkColoring AgentsCytokinesCytotoxinsDermatitis, Allergic ContactFibroblastsHumansHydrogelsInjections, IntradermalSkinTattooingColoring AgentsCytokinesCytotoxinsHydrogelsallergic contact dermatitisallergycytotoxicityIL-18in vitroreconstructed human skinsensitizationtattoo ink

Identifiers

PMID34029376
PMCPMC8453820
OpenAlexW3164143798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.