Sub-optimal Application of a High SPF Sunscreen Prevents Epidermal DNA Damage in Vivo
The cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer (CPD) is a potentially mutagenic DNA photolesion that is the basis of most skin cancers. There are no data on DNA protection by sunscreens under typical conditions of use. The study aim was to determine such protection, in phototypes I/II, with representative sunscre...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Medical Journals Sweden
2018-07-01
|
| Series: | Acta Dermato-Venereologica |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
https://www.medicaljournals.se/acta/content/html/10.2340/00015555-2992
|
| _version_ | 1819291048998862848 |
|---|---|
| author | Antony R. Young Jessica Greenaway Graham I. Harrison Karl P. Lawrence Robert Sarkany Thierry Douki France Boyer Gwendal Josse Emmanuel Questel Camille Monteil Ana B. Rossi |
| author_facet | Antony R. Young Jessica Greenaway Graham I. Harrison Karl P. Lawrence Robert Sarkany Thierry Douki France Boyer Gwendal Josse Emmanuel Questel Camille Monteil Ana B. Rossi |
| author_sort | Antony R. Young |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer (CPD) is a potentially mutagenic DNA photolesion that is the basis of most skin cancers. There are no data on DNA protection by sunscreens under typical conditions of use. The study aim was to determine such protection, in phototypes I/II, with representative sunscreen-user application. A very high SPF formulation was applied at 0.75, 1.3 and 2.0 mg/cm2. Unprotected control skin was exposed to 4 standard erythema doses (SED) of solar simulated UVR, and sunscreen-treated sites to 30 SED. Holiday behaviour was also simulated by UVR exposure for 5 consecutive days. Control skin received 1 SED daily, and sunscreen-treated sites received 15 (all 3 application thicknesses) or 30 (2.0 mg/cm2) SED daily. CPD were assessed by quantitative HPLC-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) and semi-quantitative immunostaining. In comparison with unprotected control sites, sunscreen significantly (p ≤ 0.001–0.05) reduced DNA damage at 1.3 and 2.0 mg/cm2 in all cases. However, reduction with typical sunscreen use (0.75 mg/cm2) was non-significant, with the exception of HPLC-MS/MS data for the 5-day study (p <0.001). Overall, these results support sunscreen use as a strategy to reduce skin cancer, and demonstrate that public health messages must stress better sunscreen application to get maximal benefit. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-24T03:32:27Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-782dbac0c54a447fbeac24bcbdbf8b0e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0001-5555 1651-2057 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-24T03:32:27Z |
| publishDate | 2018-07-01 |
| publisher | Medical Journals Sweden |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Acta Dermato-Venereologica |
| spelling | doaj.art-782dbac0c54a447fbeac24bcbdbf8b0e2022-12-21T17:17:09ZengMedical Journals SwedenActa Dermato-Venereologica0001-55551651-20572018-07-0198988088710.2340/00015555-29925262Sub-optimal Application of a High SPF Sunscreen Prevents Epidermal DNA Damage in VivoAntony R. Young0Jessica GreenawayGraham I. HarrisonKarl P. LawrenceRobert SarkanyThierry DoukiFrance BoyerGwendal JosseEmmanuel QuestelCamille MonteilAna B. Rossi St John's Institute of Dermatology, Kings College London, SE1 9RT London, United Kingdom. antony.young@kcl.ac.uk. The cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer (CPD) is a potentially mutagenic DNA photolesion that is the basis of most skin cancers. There are no data on DNA protection by sunscreens under typical conditions of use. The study aim was to determine such protection, in phototypes I/II, with representative sunscreen-user application. A very high SPF formulation was applied at 0.75, 1.3 and 2.0 mg/cm2. Unprotected control skin was exposed to 4 standard erythema doses (SED) of solar simulated UVR, and sunscreen-treated sites to 30 SED. Holiday behaviour was also simulated by UVR exposure for 5 consecutive days. Control skin received 1 SED daily, and sunscreen-treated sites received 15 (all 3 application thicknesses) or 30 (2.0 mg/cm2) SED daily. CPD were assessed by quantitative HPLC-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) and semi-quantitative immunostaining. In comparison with unprotected control sites, sunscreen significantly (p ≤ 0.001–0.05) reduced DNA damage at 1.3 and 2.0 mg/cm2 in all cases. However, reduction with typical sunscreen use (0.75 mg/cm2) was non-significant, with the exception of HPLC-MS/MS data for the 5-day study (p <0.001). Overall, these results support sunscreen use as a strategy to reduce skin cancer, and demonstrate that public health messages must stress better sunscreen application to get maximal benefit. https://www.medicaljournals.se/acta/content/html/10.2340/00015555-2992 sunscreenphotoprotectionDNAprotectioncyclobutanepyrimidinedimers |
| spellingShingle | Antony R. Young Jessica Greenaway Graham I. Harrison Karl P. Lawrence Robert Sarkany Thierry Douki France Boyer Gwendal Josse Emmanuel Questel Camille Monteil Ana B. Rossi Sub-optimal Application of a High SPF Sunscreen Prevents Epidermal DNA Damage in Vivo Acta Dermato-Venereologica sunscreen photoprotection DNAprotection cyclobutanepyrimidinedimers |
| title | Sub-optimal Application of a High SPF Sunscreen Prevents Epidermal DNA Damage in Vivo |
| title_full | Sub-optimal Application of a High SPF Sunscreen Prevents Epidermal DNA Damage in Vivo |
| title_fullStr | Sub-optimal Application of a High SPF Sunscreen Prevents Epidermal DNA Damage in Vivo |
| title_full_unstemmed | Sub-optimal Application of a High SPF Sunscreen Prevents Epidermal DNA Damage in Vivo |
| title_short | Sub-optimal Application of a High SPF Sunscreen Prevents Epidermal DNA Damage in Vivo |
| title_sort | sub optimal application of a high spf sunscreen prevents epidermal dna damage in vivo |
| topic | sunscreen photoprotection DNAprotection cyclobutanepyrimidinedimers |
| url |
https://www.medicaljournals.se/acta/content/html/10.2340/00015555-2992
|
| work_keys_str_mv | AT antonyryoung suboptimalapplicationofahighspfsunscreenpreventsepidermaldnadamageinvivo AT jessicagreenaway suboptimalapplicationofahighspfsunscreenpreventsepidermaldnadamageinvivo AT grahamiharrison suboptimalapplicationofahighspfsunscreenpreventsepidermaldnadamageinvivo AT karlplawrence suboptimalapplicationofahighspfsunscreenpreventsepidermaldnadamageinvivo AT robertsarkany suboptimalapplicationofahighspfsunscreenpreventsepidermaldnadamageinvivo AT thierrydouki suboptimalapplicationofahighspfsunscreenpreventsepidermaldnadamageinvivo AT franceboyer suboptimalapplicationofahighspfsunscreenpreventsepidermaldnadamageinvivo AT gwendaljosse suboptimalapplicationofahighspfsunscreenpreventsepidermaldnadamageinvivo AT emmanuelquestel suboptimalapplicationofahighspfsunscreenpreventsepidermaldnadamageinvivo AT camillemonteil suboptimalapplicationofahighspfsunscreenpreventsepidermaldnadamageinvivo AT anabrossi suboptimalapplicationofahighspfsunscreenpreventsepidermaldnadamageinvivo |