METHODS: The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability test method (BCOP), OECD Test Guideline 437, was used as an initial step to study the inducing effect of palm-based MES on irreversible eye damage. The second assessment involved the use of reconstructed human corneal-like epithelium test method, OECD Test Guideline 492 using SkinEthic™ Human Corneal Epithelium to study the potential effect of palm-based MES on eye irritancy. The palm-based MES were prepared in 10% solution (w/v) in deionized water and tested as a liquid and surfactant test substances whereby both test conducted according to the liquid/surfactant treatment protocol.
RESULTS: The preliminary BCOP results showed that palm-based MES; C12, C14, C16, C16:18 were not classified as severe eye irritants test substances with in vitro irritancy score between 3 and the threshold level of 55. The second evaluation using SkinEthic™ HCE model showed that palm-based MES; C12, C14, C16, C16:18 and three commercial samples were potentially irritants to the eyes with mean tissue viability ≤ 60% and classified as Category 2 according to United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals. However, there are some limitations of the proposed ocular irritation classification of palm-based MES due to insolubility of long chain MES in 10% solution (w/v) in deionized water.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, future studies to clarify the eye irritation potential of the palm-based MES will be needed, and could include; methods to improve the test substance solubility, use of test protocol for solids, and/or inclusion of a benchmark anionic surfactant, such as sodium dodecyl sulphate within the study design.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: ARPE-19 cells were pre-treated with LUT, ZEA, or both for 24 h before 200 μM H2O2 challenge. Cell viability was measured by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. DICER1 and Alu RNA were quantified by western blotting and real-time polymerase chain reaction, respectively.
RESULTS: H2O2 increased cell Alu RNA expression and decreased cell viability of ARPE-19, but had no significant impact on the DICER1 protein level. LUT, alone and in combination with ZEA pre-treatment, prior to H2O2 challenge significantly improved cell viability of ARPE-19 and reduced the level of Alu RNA compared to the negative control.
CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of LUT alone, and in combination with ZEA, in AMD prevention and treatment. This study is also the first to report LUT modulating effects on Alu RNA.