Biohazard surveillance of allergic contact dermatitis in genetically-modified Zoysia grasses using patch testing

Jaechun Lee; Hyeon-Jin Sun; Hyo-Yeon Lee

doi:10.4168/aard.2015.3.2.134

Journal List > Allergy Asthma Respir Dis > v.3(2) > 1059084

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee, Sun, and Lee: Biohazard surveillance of allergic contact dermatitis in genetically-modified Zoysia grasses using patch testing

Original Article

Allergy, Asthma & Respiratory Disease 2015; 3(2): 134-138.

Published online: 24 March 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4168/aard.2015.3.2.134

Biohazard surveillance of allergic contact dermatitis in genetically-modified Zoysia grasses using patch testing

Jaechun Lee¹, Hyeon-Jin Sun², Hyo-Yeon Lee²

¹Jeju National University School of Medicine, Jeju, Korea.

²Faculty of Biotechnology and Subtropical Horticulture Research Institute, Jeju National University, Jeju, Korea.

Correspondence to: Hyo-Yeon Lee. Faculty of Biotechnology and Subtropical Horticulture Research Institute, Jeju National University, 102 Jejudaehak-ro, Jeju 690-756, Korea. Tel: +82-64-754-3347, Fax: +82-64-754-3980, hyoyeon@jejunu.ac.kr

Received 8 August 2014 Revised 31 October 2014 Accepted 30 December 2014

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/).

Abstract

Purpose

Genetic modification technique is widely used in plants for improving crop yields and qualities, and reducing pesticide use. Zoysia japonica is one of the widely planted grasses for lawning. Pollenless herbicide-tolerant genetically modified (GM) grasses (JG21-MS1 and JG21-MS2) were developed under surveillance for possible biohazard. Grasses may cause allergic contact dermatitis with direct contact on human skin. Patch testing with allergens was adopted to compare the incidences of allergic contact dermatitis to GM grass leaves with those of wild-type grass.

Methods

Patch testing with controls and leaves of wild-type and GM grasses was performed in individuals with informed consent.

Results

Ninety-seven individuals (mean age, 32±8 years; 48% males) were enrolled. For nickel sulfate as a positive control, 38 subjects (39.2%) were positive. For GM grasses, 10 (10.3%) showed positive patch test results and 11 (11.3%), for wild-type grass, the proportions of which were similar among the tested grasses.

Conclusion

JG21-MS1 and JG21-MS2 are not more biohazardous than wild-type grass in the risk of allergic contact dermatitis.

Keywords: Genetically modified plants, Contact dermatitis, Patch tests, Hypersensitivity, Allergens

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

Patch testing with Finn chambers: an actual preparation. Nickel, Nickel sulfate as a positive control; NC, blanked as a negative control; WT, wild type of Zoysia japonica; 1, JG21 (genetically modified Z. japonica for herbicide tolerance); 2, JG21-MS2 (genetically modified Z. japonica for herbicide tolerance and male sterility); 3, JG21-MS1 (genetically modified Z. japonica for herbicide tolerance and unbolting).

Fig. 2

Positive rates in the patch testing. Nickel, Nickel sulfate as a positive control; NC, blanked as a negative control; WT, wild type of Zoysia japonica; 1, JG21 (genetically modified Z. japonica for herbicide tolerance); 2, JG21-MS2 (genetically modified Z. japonica for herbicide tolerance and male sterility); 3, JG21-MS1 (genetically modified Z. japonica for herbicide tolerance and unbolting).

Table 1

Incidences of skin reaction to test objects among 97 participants

Test objects	±	1+	2+	3+
Nickel sulfate	1	19	14	5
Blanked	0	0	0	0
Leaves of Z. japonica
Wild type	5	8	3	0
JG21	5	8	2	0
JG21-MS2	5	8	2	0
JG21-MS1	4	8	2	0

Z. japonica, Zoysia japonica.

Notes

This work was supported by grants from the Next-Generation BioGreen 21 Program (PJ009499032014), Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea and the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2009-0094059).

References

1. Rajan TV. The Gell-Coombs classification of hypersensitivity reactions: a re-interpretation. Trends Immunol. 2003; 24:376–379.

2. Mortz CG, Andersen KE. Allergic contact dermatitis in children and adolescents. Contact Dermatitis. 1999; 41:121–130.

3. Jeon BH, Lee J, Kim JH, Kim JW, Lee HS, Lee KH. Atopy and sensitization rates to aeroallergens in children and teenagers in Jeju, Korea. Korean J Asthma Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010; 30:14–20.

4. Koh D, Goh CL, Tan HT, Ng SK, Wong WK. Allergic contact dermatitis from grasses. Contact Dermatitis. 1997; 37:32–34.

5. Clark RA, Adinoff AD. Aeroallergen contact can exacerbate atopic dermatitis: patch tests as a diagnostic tool. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989; 21(4 Pt 2):863–869.

6. Ganesan M, Han YJ, Bae TW, Hwang OJ, Chandrasekhar T, Shin AY, et al. Overexpression of phytochrome A and its hyperactive mutant improves shade tolerance and turf quality in creeping bentgrass and zoysiagrass. Planta. 2012; 236:1135–1150.

7. Toyama K, Bae CH, Kang JG, Lim YP, Adachi T, Riu KZ, et al. Production of herbicide-tolerant zoysiagrass by Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Mol Cells. 2003; 16:19–27.

8. Bae TW, Vanjildorj E, Song SY, Nishiguchi S, Yang SS, Song IJ, et al. Environmental risk assessment of genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant Zoysia japonica. J Environ Qual. 2008; 37:207–218.

9. Bae TW, Song IJ, Kang HG, Jeong OC, Sun HJ, Ko SM, et al. Selection of male-sterile and dwarfism genetically modified Zoysia japonica through gamma irradiation. J Radiati Ind. 2010; 4:239–246.

10. Bae TW, Kim J, Song IJ, Song SY, Lim PO, Song PS, et al. Production of unbolting lines through gamma-ray irradiation mutagenesis in genetically modified herbicide-tolerant Zoysia japonica. Breed Sci. 2009; 59:103–105.

11. Fullerton A, Fischer T, Lahti A, Wilhelm KP, Takiwaki H, Serup J. Guidelines for measurement of skin colour and erythema. A report from the Standardization Group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1996; 35:1–10.

12. Zug KA, Warshaw EM, Fowler JF Jr, Maibach HI, Belsito DL, Pratt MD, et al. Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis. 2009; 20:149–160.

13. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. ISAAA brief 43-2011: executive summary. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2011 [Internet]. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications;2015. cited 2015 Jan 8. Available from: http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary.

14. Goodman RE, Vieths S, Sampson HA, Hill D, Ebisawa M, Taylor SL, et al. Allergenicity assessment of genetically modified crops: what makes sense? Nat Biotechnol. 2008; 26:73–81.

15. Taylor SL, Hefle SL. Will genetically modified foods be allergenic? J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2001; 107:765–771.

16. Herman EM, Helm RM, Jung R, Kinney AJ. Genetic modification removes an immunodominant allergen from soybean. Plant Physiol. 2003; 132:36–43.

17. Types and mechanisms of hypersensitivity. The Korean Academy Asthma, Allergy, and Clinical Immunology. Asthma and allergic diseases. Seoul: Ryo Moon Gak;2012. p. 53–58.

18. de Groot AC. Patch test concentrations and vehicles for testing contact allergens. In : Rustemeyer T, Elsner P, John SM, Maibach HI, editors. Kanerva's occupational dermatology. 2nd ed. New York: Springer;2012. p. 1849–1893.

19. Nixon LR, Diepgen T. Contact dermatitis. In : Adkinson NF, Bochner BS, Burks AW, editors. Middleton's Allergy: principles and practice. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences;2013. p. 565–574.

20. Lee GY, Kim JK, Kim KJ. A study of the results of patch test in patients with contact dermatitis. Korean J Dermatol. 2007; 45:908–914.

21. Hansen SR, Kroon S. Patch testing and nickel allergy. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2008; 128:433–435.

TOOLS

Similar articles