ArticleContact dermatitis2025
In vitro characterisation of a novel rubber contact allergen in protective gloves.
Article in Contact dermatitis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Patients With Positive Patch Test Reactions to Rubber Additives: A Retrospective Study From Turkey Between 1996 and 2023.Contact dermatitis · 2025Article
- The Carba Mix-In Vitro Investigations of Potential Cocktail Effects in Patch Tests With Rubber Allergens.Contact dermatitis · 2025Article
- In vitro characterisation of a novel rubber contact allergen in protective gloves.Contact dermatitis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAllergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from protective gloves is often caused by rubber additives, such as accelerators. However, while accelerator-free rubber gloves are available, they still cause ACD in some individuals.
objectivesA new allergen, 2-cyаnоethyl dimethyldithiocarbamate, (CEDMC), has recently been identified in accelerator-free gloves, and we here provide a first in vitro characterisation of CEDMC in a dendritic cell (DC)-like cell model along with three reference sensitizer rubber chemicals, consisting of tetraethylthiuram disulfide (TETD) and two xanthogenates.
methodsCellular responses after the exposure to the rubber chemicals were assessed using a transcriptomic approach, multiplex cytokine secretion profiling, and flow cytometry to determine DC model activation marker expression and apoptosis induction.
resultsCEDMC and all other sensitizers were classified as strong skin sensitizers with the transcriptomic approach. They all significantly increased IL-8 secretion and exposure to all except one increased CD86 DC activation marker expression. When tested, CEDMC induced apoptosis, however, delayed compared to TETD.
conclusionsThe in vitro data corroborate CEDMC, TETD, and investigated xanthogenates as skin sensitizers. Transcriptomic analyses further reveal unique cellular responses induced by CEDMC, which together with future study can contribute to better understanding of cellular mechanisms underlying the sensitising capacity of rubber chemicals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.