Mouse ear swelling test

Gad, S. C. et al., Development and validation of an alternative dermal sensitization test the mouse ear swelling test (MEST), Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 84, 93, 1986. 

Cell-mediated immunity Cytotoxic T lymphocyte killing delayed type hypersensitivity response mouse ear swelling test (MEST Gad et al., 1986) guinea pig maximization test (Magnusson and Kligman, 1969). 

Gad S.C., Dunn, B.J., Dobbs, D.W. and Walsh, R.D. (1986) Developmental and validation of an alternative dermal sensitization test The Mouse Ear Swelling Test (MEST), Topical Appl. Pharmacol. 84 93-114. 

Cornacoff JB, House RV, Dean JH (1988) Comparison of a radioisotopic incorporation method and the mouse ear swelling test MEST) for contact sensitivity to weak sensitizers. Fund Appl Toxicol 10 40-44 Dunn BJ, Rusch GM, Siglin JC, Blaszcak DL (1990) Variability of a mouse ear swelling test (MEST) in prediction of weak and moderate contact sensitizers. Fundam Appl Toxicol 5 242-248... 

DCC has a higher contact hypersensitivity in the mouse ear swelling test than DICDI. Exposure to diisopropylcarbodiimide can cause temporary blindness. ... 

In the local lymph node assay, a threefold increase in the proliferation of auricular lymph node cells was observed in mice treated topically with the compound bixin (1-25% w/v) at concentrations of 5 to 25%. In the mouse ear swelling test, a significant increase in percent ear swelling was observed in animals treated with 5 to 10% bixin. Bixin was classified as a nonirritant at concentrations of 1 to 25% (w/v) but was considered a contact sensitizer. In these same tests, the compound norbixin (1-20% w/v) showed no irritation or contact sensitization (Auttachoat et al. 2005). 

A structural similarity or cross allergy between MDI and MDA has been considered as an explanation for simultaneous reactions to MDI and MDA (Fregert 1967 Rothe 1976). MDA may also have formed as a result of hydrolysis of MDI (Buist and Gudgeon 1970). The positive TDI reactions in patients exposed to MDI can be explained by cross reactions between MDI and TDI, which has been confirmed by mouse-ear-swelling tests (Tanaka et al. 1987), although the reactions may also be due to concomitant sensitization to the chemicals. Commercial MDI and PAPI may contain as much as 21% TDI (Lubach 1978). 

Other animal tests have been used to study skin irritation by surfactants or other chemicals and have been reviewed by Gabriel [50]. They are the mouse ear swelling test, the guinea pig immersion technique, the cumulative irritation test on rabbits, and the rabbit ear test. As their usage is continually declining, the reader is referred to Ref. 50 for further details. 

---