Dose Response for UV-induced Immune Suppression in People of Color: Differences Based on Erythemal Reactivity Rather than Skin Pigmentation ¶ †

Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is known to suppress immune responses in human subjects. The purpose of this study was to develop dose responses across a broad range of skin pigmentation in order to facilitate risk assessment. UVR was administered using FS 20 bulbs. Skin pigmentation and UVR sensitivity were evaluated using Fitzpatrick classifications, minimal erythemal dose (MED), slope of the erythemal dose response curve (sED), baseline pigmentation and tanning response. To assess immune responses dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB) was applied to irradiated buttock skin 72 h after irradiation. Two weeks later DNCB was applied to the inside upper arm. Skin thickness was measured before and after challenge. Dose response was modeled (to obtain a regression line) for the entire group of 185 subjects. With the exception of sED none of the above-mentioned pigmentation indicators contributed significantly to variability around the regression line. Thus, differences in sensitivity for multiple skin types based on Fitzpatrick classification or MED were not observed. However, differences in immune sensitivity to UVR were detected between subjects with steep erythemal dose response curves and those with moderate or flat responses. For subjects with steep erythemal responses the dose calculated to suppress the immune response by 50% was 114 mJ/cm 2 . This group included individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types I–V, MED for these subjects ranged from 30 to 80 mJ/cm 2 . The 50% suppression dose for subjects with weak or no erythemal response could not be computed (the dose response was flat). This resistant group included subjects with skin types IV–VI and MED for these subjects ranged from 41 to >105 mJ/cm 2 . This study provides a human dose response for UVR suppression of contact sensitivity that will be useful in risk assessment. It is the first study to provide this information using the FS sun lamp and is the first study to include people of color. The sED appears to be a new variable for identifying sensitive subjects at risk of UVR-induced immune suppression.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/71426/1/0031-8655_2001_0740088DRFUII2.0.CO2.pd

Deafness and Orality: An Electronic Conversation

Processing Note: This is a symposium and has a lot of participants, listed as authors and recorded here in alphabetical order.AbstractNot

Two-Component Direct Fluorescent-Antibody Assay for Rapid Identification of Bacillus anthracis

A two-component direct fluorescent-antibody (DFA) assay, using fluorescein-labeled monoclonal antibodies specific to the Bacillus anthracis cell wall (CW-DFA) and capsule (CAP-DFA) antigens, was evaluated and validated for rapid identification of B. anthracis. We analyzed 230 B. anthracis isolates; 228 and 229 were positive by CW-DFA and CAP-DFA assays, respectively. We also tested 56 non–B. anthracis strains; 10 B. cereus and 2 B. thuringiensis were positive by the CW-DFA assay, and 1 B. megaterium strain was positive by CAP-DFA. Analysis of the combined DFA results identified 227 of 230 B. anthracis isolates; all 56 strains of the other Bacillus spp. were negative. Both DFA assays tested positive on 14 of 26 clinical specimens from the 2001 anthrax outbreak investigation. The two-component DFA assay is a sensitive, specific, and rapid confirmatory test for B. anthracis in cultures and may be useful directly on clinical specimens

Sound Studies Meets Deaf Studies

Sound studies and Deaf studies may seem at first impression to operate in worlds apart. We argue in this article, however, that similar renderings of hearing, deafness, and seeing as ideal types - and as often essentialized sensory modes - make it possible to read differences between Sound studies and Deaf studies as sites of possible articulation. We direct attention to four zones of productive overlap, attending to how sound is inferred in deaf and Deaf practice, how reimagining sound in the register of low-frequency vibration can upend deafhearing dichotomies, how “deaf futurists“ champion cyborg sound, and how signing and other non-spoken communicative practices might undo phonocentric models of speech. Sound studies and Deaf studies emerge as fields with much to offer one another epistemologically, theoretically, and practically