WWP2 ubiquitylates RNA polymerase II for DNA-PK-dependent transcription arrest and repair at DNA breaks.

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) at RNA polymerase II (RNAPII) transcribed genes lead to inhibition of transcription. The DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK) complex plays a pivotal role in transcription inhibition at DSBs by stimulating proteasome-dependent eviction of RNAPII at these lesions. How DNA-PK triggers RNAPII eviction to inhibit transcription at DSBs remains unclear. Here we show that the HECT E3 ubiquitin ligase WWP2 associates with components of the DNA-PK and RNAPII complexes and is recruited to DSBs at RNAPII transcribed genes. In response to DSBs, WWP2 targets the RNAPII subunit RPB1 for K48-linked ubiquitylation, thereby driving DNA-PK- and proteasome-dependent eviction of RNAPII. The lack of WWP2 or expression of nonubiquitylatable RPB1 abrogates the binding of nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) factors, including DNA-PK and XRCC4/DNA ligase IV, and impairs DSB repair. These findings suggest that WWP2 operates in a DNA-PK-dependent shutoff circuitry for RNAPII clearance that promotes DSB repair by protecting the NHEJ machinery from collision with the transcription machinery.

PARP1 Links CHD2-Mediated Chromatin Expansion and H3.3 Deposition to DNA Repair by Non-homologous End-Joining.

The response to DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) requires alterations in chromatin structure to promote the assembly of repair complexes on broken chromosomes. Non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) is the dominant DSB repair pathway in human cells, but our understanding of how it operates in chromatin is limited. Here, we define a mechanism that plays a crucial role in regulating NHEJ in chromatin. This mechanism is initiated by DNA damage-associated poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1), which recruits the chromatin remodeler CHD2 through a poly(ADP-ribose)-binding domain. CHD2 in turn triggers rapid chromatin expansion and the deposition of histone variant H3.3 at sites of DNA damage. Importantly, we find that PARP1, CHD2, and H3.3 regulate the assembly of NHEJ complexes at broken chromosomes to promote efficient DNA repair. Together, these findings reveal a PARP1-dependent process that couples ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling with histone variant deposition at DSBs to facilitate NHEJ and safeguard genomic stability.

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis. Part 2. Cross- and co-sensitization, other skin reactions to HEMA, position of HEMA among (meth)acrylates, sensitivity as screening agent, presence of HEMA in commercial products and practical information on patch test procedures.

This is the second part of a literature review of the clinical aspects of contact allergy to and allergic contact dermatitis from 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA). Topics include cross- and co-sensitization, atypical manifestations of contact allergy, frequency of positive patch tests to HEMA compared with other (meth)acrylates, sensitivity of HEMA as a screening agent, the presence of HEMA in commercial products, and practical information on patch testing procedures. Primary sensitization to methacrylates including HEMA may result in methacrylate and acrylate cross-sensitization. There is a strong cross-allergy between HEMA, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), and hydroxypropyl methacrylate; many reactions to EGDMA are cross-reactions to primary HEMA sensitization. Rare atypical manifestations of HEMA-allergy include lichen planus, lymphomatoid papulosis, systemic contact dermatitis, leukoderma after positive patch tests, and systemic side effects such as nausea, diarrhoea, malaise, and palpitations. The occurrence of respiratory disease caused by methacrylates such as asthma is not infrequent. HEMA is the most frequently patch test-positive methacrylate. It is a good screening agent for allergy to other (meth)acrylates. Patch test sensitization to HEMA 2% pet. is extremely rare. There are (some) indications that HEMA is frequently used in dental products and nail cosmetics.

Contact allergy to acrylate-containing nail cosmetics: A retrospective 8-year study.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 10 years, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from acrylate-containing nail cosmetics (acrylic nails, gel nails, gel nail polish) has been reported repeatedly. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency and clinical features of ACD in nail cosmetics in a university hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study in patients diagnosed with ACD from acrylate-containing nail cosmetics at the Amsterdam University Medical Centers between January 2015 and August 2023. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients, all women, were diagnosed with ACD from nail cosmetics, representing 1.6% of all individuals and 2.3% of all women patch tested in this period. Sixty-five of sixty-seven (97%) subjects had a positive patch test to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA). Forty-nine patients (73%) were consumers and 18 (27%) were professional nail stylists. The sites most frequently affected with dermatitis were the fingers (79%), hands (40%) and the head and/or neck. Avoidance of contact with acrylate-containing products resulted in complete clearing of dermatitis in 80% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: ACD from acrylate-containing nail cosmetics is frequent in women patch tested in Amsterdam. Nearly all were identified by a positive patch test to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate in the (meth)acrylate series or the European baseline series.

Presence of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) and other (meth)acrylates in nail cosmetics, and compliance with EU legislation: An online market survey.

BACKGROUND: During the last 15-20 years, allergic contact dermatitis from acrylates-containing nail cosmetics (acrylic nails, gel nails, gel nail polish) has been increasingly reported. 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) is considered to be the major allergenic culprit; few data on its presence in nail cosmetics are available. OBJECTIVES: To investigate (1) the frequency in which HEMA and di-HEMA trimethylhexyl dicarbamate are present in nail cosmetics; (2) whether nail cosmetics comply with EU regulations; (3) which other (meth)acrylates are present in nail cosmetics and how often. METHODS: One-line market survey. RESULTS: HEMA was present in nearly 60% of 394 cosmetic nail products and di-HEMA trimethylhexyl dicarbamate in 34%. Mandatory warnings on the packages of products containing HEMA were absent in 35% ('For professional use only') resp. 55% ('Can cause an allergic reaction'). Forty-five other (meth)acrylates were identified, of which the most frequent were hydroxypropyl methacrylate (25%), isobornyl methacrylate (16%) and trimethylolpropane triacrylate (12%). Some ingredient lists mentioned non-INCI names or non-specific names. CONCLUSIONS: HEMA was by far the most common ingredient of nail cosmetics, being present in nearly 60% of the products. Violations of EU legislation occurred in >30% (mandatory warnings missing) resp. 10% (mislabelling) of nail cosmetics.

Results of patch testing 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) in the European baseline series: A 4-year retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) was added to the European baseline series (EBS) in 2019. Few recent data are available on the frequency and relevance of positive reactions to this hapten. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency and relevance of positive patch tests to HEMA in the EBS in a university hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study in patients with positive patch tests to HEMA investigated between June 2019 and August 2023. RESULTS: Of 2927 consecutive patients, 88 (79 women and 9 men; 3.0%) had a positive reaction to HEMA. The prevalence in women was 3.9%, in men 1.0%. Forty-three (49%) reactions were judged to be of current clinical relevance and 21 (24%) of past relevance. In this group of 64 patients with relevant reactions, 18 (28%) had occupational contact with (meth)acrylate-containing products, of who 11 (61%) were nail stylists. In 46 patients with non-occupational allergic contact dermatitis, 31 (67%) had allergic reactions to nail cosmetics. Glues and glue-containing products accounted for 22% of the materials causing allergic contact dermatitis and dental products for 8%. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic reactions to HEMA are very frequent in women investigated in Amsterdam. Nearly two thirds of cases were caused by nail cosmetics.

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis-Part 1. Introduction, epidemiology, case series and case reports.

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) has been increasingly recognised as a contact allergen and was added to the European baseline series in 2019. In this article (2 parts), the results of an extensive literature review of the clinical aspects of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis to HEMA are presented. In part 1, the epidemiology of HEMA contact allergy is discussed and detailed information on published case series and case reports presented. HEMA is an important cause of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis in North America and Europe with recent prevalences of >3% in the USA + Canada and 1.5%-3.7% in Europe. Currently, most cases are caused by nail cosmetics, both in consumers and professional nail stylists. In our literature review, we have found 24 studies presenting case series of patients with allergic contact dermatitis attributed to HEMA and 168 case reports. However, the presence of HEMA in the products causing ACD was established in only a minority. Part 2 will discuss cross- and co-sensitisation, and other skin reactions to HEMA, will assess whether HEMA is the most frequent (meth)acrylate allergen and how sensitive HEMA as a screening agent is, investigate the presence of HEMA in commercial products and provide practical information on patch testing procedures.

Patch testing in drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS): A literature review.

The literature on positive patch test results in drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is reviewed. One hundred and five drugs were identified that have together caused 536 positive patch tests in 437 DRESS patients. By far, the most reactions (n = 145) were caused by carbamazepine, followed by amoxicillin, isoniazid, phenytoin, ethambutol, fluindione, phenobarbital, rifampicin, and ceftriaxone; 43 drugs each caused a single case only. The drug classes causing the highest number of reactions were anticonvulsants (39%), beta-lactam antibiotics (20%), antituberculosis agents (11%), non-beta-lactam antibiotics (6%), and iodinated contrast media (5%). The sensitivity of patch testing (percentage of positive reactions) is high for anticonvulsants (notably carbamazepine), beta-lactam antibiotics (notably amoxicillin), and, possibly, iodinated contrast media. Allopurinol and sulfasalazine frequently cause DRESS but never give positive patch tests. Patch testing in DRESS appears to be safe, although mild recurrence of DRESS symptoms, mostly skin reactions, may not be rare. Multiple drug hypersensitivity was found to occur in 16% of all patients, but it is argued that the true frequency is higher. Clinical aspects of DRESS, including diagnosing the disease and identifying culprit drugs (patch tests, intradermal tests, in vitro tests, challenge tests) are also provided, emphasizing the role of patch testing.

Results of patch testing in acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP): A literature review.

The literature on positive patch-test results in acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) is reviewed. Ninety-three drugs were identified that have together caused 259 positive patch tests in 248 patients with AGEP. The drug classes causing the highest number of reactions are beta-lactam antibiotics (25.9%), other antibiotics (20.8%), iodinated contrast media (7.3%), and corticosteroids (5.4%), together accounting for nearly 60% of all reactions. The highest number of reactions to individual drugs was to amoxicillin (n = 36), followed by pristinamycin (n = 25), diltiazem (n = 14), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (n = 13), clindamycin (n = 11), and iomeprol (n = 8); 59 of the 93 drugs each caused a single case only. The "Top-10" drugs together caused over 50% of all reactions. The sensitivity of patch testing (percentage of positive reactions) in patients with AGEP is largely unknown, but may generally be ~50%, which also applies to pristinamycin. Patch testing in AGEP appears to be safe, although mild recurrence of AGEP skin symptoms or other rashes may occur occasionally. Clinical aspects of AGEP, including epidemiology, etiology and pathophysiology, clinical features, histology, treatment, and prognosis are briefly presented, as are diagnosing the disease and identifying the culprit drugs with patch tests, intradermal tests, in vitro tests, and challenge tests.

Systemic allergic dermatitis (systemic contact dermatitis) from pharmaceutical drugs: A review.

The literature on systemic allergic dermatitis (SAD; also known as systemic contact dermatitis) is reviewed. Both topical drugs (from absorption through mucosae or skin) and systemic drugs (oral, parenteral, rectal) may be responsible for the disorder. The topical route appears to be rare with 41 culprit topical drugs found to cause SAD in 95 patients. Most reactions are caused by budesonide (especially from inhalation), bufexamac, and dibucaine. SAD from systemic drugs is infrequent with 95 culprit drugs found to cause SAD in 240 patients. The drugs most frequently implicated are mitomycin C, methylprednisolone (salt, ester), and hydrocortisone (salt). The largest group of culprit drugs consisted of corticosteroids (19%), being responsible for >30% of the reactions, of which nearly 40% were not caused by therapeutic drugs, but by drug provocation tests. The most frequent manifestations of SAD from drugs are eczematous eruptions (scattered, widespread, generalized, worsening, reactivation), maculopapular eruptions, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE [baboon syndrome]) and widespread erythema or erythroderma. Therapeutic systemic drugs hardly ever cause reactivation of previously positive patch tests and infrequently of previous allergic contact dermatitis. The pathophysiology of SAD has received very little attention. Explanations for the rarity of SAD are suggested.

Gcn5 and Esa1 function as histone crotonyltransferases to regulate crotonylation-dependent transcription.

Histone post-translational modifications (PTMs) are critical for processes such as transcription. The more notable among these are the nonacetyl histone lysine acylation modifications such as crotonylation, butyrylation, and succinylation. However, the biological relevance of these PTMs is not fully understood because their regulation is largely unknown. Here, we set out to investigate whether the main histone acetyltransferases in budding yeast, Gcn5 and Esa1, possess crotonyltransferase activity. In vitro studies revealed that the Gcn5-Ada2-Ada3 (ADA) and Esa1-Yng2-Epl1 (Piccolo NuA4) histone acetyltransferase complexes have the capacity to crotonylate histones. Mass spectrometry analysis revealed that ADA and Piccolo NuA4 crotonylate lysines in the N-terminal tails of histone H3 and H4, respectively. Functionally, we show that crotonylation selectively affects gene transcription in vivo in a manner dependent on Gcn5 and Esa1. Thus, we identify the Gcn5- and Esa1-containing ADA and Piccolo NuA4 complexes as bona fide crotonyltransferases that promote crotonylation-dependent transcription.

Quantitative phosphoproteomics to unravel the cellular response to chemical stressors with different modes of action.

Damage to cellular macromolecules and organelles by chemical exposure evokes activation of various stress response pathways. To what extent different chemical stressors activate common and stressor-specific pathways is largely unknown. Here, we used quantitative phosphoproteomics to compare the signaling events induced by four stressors with different modes of action: the DNA damaging agent: cisplatin (CDDP), the topoisomerase II inhibitor: etoposide (ETO), the pro-oxidant: diethyl maleate (DEM) and the immunosuppressant: cyclosporine A (CsA) administered at an equitoxic dose to mouse embryonic stem cells. We observed major differences between the stressors in the number and identity of responsive phosphosites and the amplitude of phosphorylation. Kinase motif and pathway analyses indicated that the DNA damage response (DDR) activation by CDDP occurs predominantly through the replication-stress-related Atr kinase, whereas ETO triggers the DDR through Atr as well as the DNA double-strand-break-associated Atm kinase. CsA shares with ETO activation of CK2 kinase. Congruent with their known modes of action, CsA-mediated signaling is related to down-regulation of pathways that control hematopoietic differentiation and immunity, whereas oxidative stress is the most prominent initiator of DEM-modulated stress signaling. This study shows that even at equitoxic doses, different stressors induce distinctive and complex phosphorylation signaling cascades.

Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru) - A critical review of the literature and assessment of the significance of positive patch test reactions and the usefulness of restrictive diets.

In this article, contact allergy to Myroxylon pereirae resin (MP) (balsam of Peru) is reviewed. The topics presented include the uses, the chemical composition, the frequency of sensitization, the relevance of positive reactions, the MP-containing products causing allergic contact dermatitis, co-reactivity with other fragrance and non-fragrance materials, the sensitizers, the usefulness of MP as a "marker" of fragrance allergy, and the effectiveness of, and indications for, "balsam-restrictive" diets. Sensitization to MP occurs in 4% to 8% of patients routinely tested for suspected contact dermatitis. There are few adequate data on relevance. Topical pharmaceuticals were formerly, but are not today, important sources of sensitization. Cosmetics and foods or drinks are hardly ever products responsible for sensitization to MP. Positive patch test reactions in the large majority probably result from previous sensitization to MP constituents because of their presence in fragrances and fragranced products, MP thereby acting as marker (or "indicator") of fragrance allergy. However, fragrance mix I is a more sensitive marker, and the added diagnostic value of testing with MP is unknown. The allergenic ingredients of MP include isoeugenol, eugenol and cinnamyl alcohol, but there are other-largely unknown-chemicals that are responsible for contact allergy. Suggestions are given for further research to address questions thus far unanswered and to improve patient care.

Adding sorbitan sesquioleate to the European baseline series: Necessary, reasonable, or unavoidable?

Positive reactions to fragrance mix I (FM I) are frequent in consecutively patch tested patients suspected of having allergic contact dermatitis. However, the FM I test preparations contain 5% of the emulsifier sorbitan sesquioleate (SSO), and it is well known that SSO can cause contact allergic reactions in its own right. Indeed, the available data show that some patients with contact allergy to SSO react to FM I but are not allergic to fragrances. When SSO is not tested, this situation may go unnoticed, a wrong diagnosis of fragrance allergy may be given to the patient, and unjustified advice to avoid fragrances and fragranced products will be given in such cases. To avoid such suboptimal patient care, we postulate that testing with SSO in all patch tested individuals is mandatory. As it is well known that only a minority of FM I-reactive patients will undergo a breakdown test with the ingredients and SSO, testing with SSO in all patients can only be achieved by adding it to the European baseline series. Not testing with SSO may also result in misinterpretation of patch test reactions to Myroxylon pereirae resin and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate in the baseline series, as both (may) contain SSO, and, for the same reason, of reactions to several other hapten test materials.

Tea tree oil: contact allergy and chemical composition.

In this article, contact allergy to, and the chemical composition of, tea tree oil (TTO) are reviewed. This essential oil is a popular remedy for many skin diseases, and may be used as neat oil or be present in cosmetics, topical pharmaceuticals and household products. Of all essential oils, TTO has caused most (published) allergic reactions since the first cases were reported in 1991. In routine testing, prevalences of positive patch test reactions have ranged from 0.1% to 3.5%. Nearly 100 allergic patients have been described in case reports and case series. The major constituents of commercial TTO are terpinen-4-ol, γ-terpinene, 1,8-cineole, α-terpinene, α-terpineol, p-cymene, and α-pinene. Fresh TTO is a weak to moderate sensitizer, but oxidation increases its allergenic potency. The major sensitizers appear to be ascaridole, terpinolene, α-terpinene, 1,2,4-trihydroxymenthane, α-phellandrene, and limonene. The clinical picture of allergic contact dermatitis caused by TTO depends on the products used. Most reactions are caused by the application of pure oil; cosmetics are the culprits in a minority of cases. Patch testing may be performed with 5% oxidized TTO. Co-reactivity to turpentine oil is frequent, and there is an overrepresentation of reactions to fragrance mix I, Myroxylon pereirae, colophonium, and other essential oils.

Contact and photocontact allergy to octocrylene: a review.

Octocrylene is an ultraviolet (UV)B and UVAII absorber that was introduced some 15 years ago, and is now widely used in sunscreen agents and skin care cosmetics. Since 2003, several studies, notably from France, Belgium, Spain, and Italy, have reported an increasing number of patients with photocontact allergy to octocrylene. This reaction is seen mainly in adult patients who have previously used topical products containing the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug ketoprofen. Photosensitization to ketoprofen leads, in many cases, to photocontact allergy to octocrylene; the mechanism of this reaction is unknown. Contact allergy to octocrylene also occurs, but is far less frequent, and is seen, in most cases, in children, resulting from the use of octocrylene-containing sunscreen products. In this article, (photo)contact allergy to octocrylene is fully reviewed.

Side-effects of henna and semi-permanent 'black henna' tattoos: a full review.

Henna, the dried and powdered leaf of Lawsonia inermis, is widely used as a dye for the skin, hair, and nails, and as an expression of body art, especially in Islamic and Hindu cultures. As it stains the skin reddish-brown, it is also called red henna. Black henna is the combination of red henna with p-phenylenediamine (PPD), and is used for temporary 'black henna tattoos'. This article provides a full review of the side-effects of topical application of red and black henna, both cutaneous (allergic and non-allergic) and systemic. Red henna appears to be generally safe, with rare instances of contact allergy and type I hypersensitivity reactions. In children with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, topical application of henna may cause life-threatening haemolysis. Black henna tattoos will induce contact allergy to its ingredient PPD at an estimated frequency of 2.5%. Once sensitized, the patients may experience allergic contact dermatitis from the use of hair dyes containing PPD. There are often cross-reactions to other hair dyes, dyes used in textiles, local anaesthetics, and rubber chemicals. The sensitization of children to PPD may have important consequences for health and later career prospects. Systemic toxicity of black henna has been reported in certain African countries.