FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4386466723> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4386466723 endingPage "5" @default.
• W4386466723 startingPage "3" @default.
• W4386466723 abstract "Electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun carries the energy that sustains life on Earth by providing light and heat. It also enables vitamin D synthesis and stimulates the psyche. Only a small part of the solar radiation emitted by the sun reaches the Earth's surface: ultraviolet (UV) radiation (5% UVB rays – 290–320 nm – and 95% UVA rays – 320–380 nm); visible light, which corresponds to the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye (380–780 nm); and infrared light (IR, 780 nm-3 mm).1 The respective irradiance distribution of these spectral components at sea level is 5%, 50% and 45%.2 Our skin is directly exposed to solar radiation, the type and the intensity of which vary according to several parameters, such as location (latitude and altitude), time (season and moment of the day), position (sun/shadow, outdoor/indoor, distance from a window, inside a car, etc.) and environment (presence of snow, water or pollutants).3 The balance between exposure to the moderate sun radiation necessary for life and to excessive radiation leading to skin damage is fragile.4 Indeed, UV radiation is now widely known to have harmful effects on the skin: it can lead to genotoxic damage, either directly through DNA strand breaks or indirectly through oxidative stress on macromolecules including nucleic acids, proteins and lipids. UVB rays do not penetrate beyond the epidermis, but they can reach the basal cell membrane area where they can directly induce DNA damage and thus cause sunburn and skin cancer. Due to their longer wavelengths, UVA rays penetrate deeper into the skin than UVB rays. UVA radiation can reach the upper layers of the dermis and cause indirect damage to DNA through interactions with endogenous chromophores (e.g. porphyrins, bilirubin, flavins and melanin), which then generate reactive oxygen species (ROS). Long-term exposure to UVA has been shown to lead to photoaging, photodermatoses, immunosuppression and photocarcinogenesis.2, 5 Initially considered harmless, the effects of visible light on the skin have recently been drawing more attention. Although the photons in visible light carry less energy than those in UV light, visible light is more abundant and penetrates deeper into the skin layers than UV radiation, with about 20% of visible light reaching the hypodermis after exposure.2, 6 Several studies have highlighted the harmful effects of visible light on the skin in recent years. In particular, the genotoxic effects of visible light, mediated by oxidative stress mechanisms similar to those induced by UVA radiation, have been demonstrated in studies of human keratinocytes and Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells.5 Ex vivo studies of human skin biopsies from individuals with Fitzpatrick skin type II found that excess free radicals were produced under the influence of light across all wavelengths ranging from UVB to the end of the visible light spectrum (280–700 nm), with 50% of the total skin oxidative burden being generated by visible light.4 In mammalian cells, the most significant harmful effects of visible light seem to be caused by exposure to blue-violet radiation (400–480 nm) near the UVA range.2, 7-10 In vivo, blue-violet light has been shown to induce significant and dose-dependent degradation of epidermal antioxidants (carotenoids) in human skin types II-III.11 This is likely caused by the action of free radicals, most probably ROS, which have been shown to be generated in human skin after irradiation with blue-violet light in vivo. Similar effects have also been observed in skin types IV-V: in a pilot study assessing the distribution of radical production during irradiation with UV, visible and near-IR light, Albrecht et al.12 showed that, in skin types IV-V, most radicals were induced by radiation with wavelengths in the visible + near-IR range, followed by that with wavelengths in the near-IR and UV regions. Radical formation in skin types IV-V was found to be 60% of that detected in skin type II after 4 minutes of exposure, suggesting possible long-term effects of excessive exposure to visible and near-IR radiation even in skin types IV and V.12 As expected, more radicals (threefold higher levels) were formed after UV irradiation in skin type II than in skin types IV-V.12 The ROS produced during blue light irradiation of stratum corneum specimens and keratinocytes would most probably be superoxide.7, 8 Blue light may also affect the condition of the skin, altering skin colour and skin moisture functions via the production of carbonylated proteins by superoxide anion radicals through lipid peroxidation in the sebum.7 In contrast, the deleterious effects of UVA appear to be mediated by the production of singlet oxygen.8 In addition to increased ROS production, blue light exposure has been shown to induce dose-dependent DNA damage, a clastogenic/aneugenic effect leading to chromosome aberration and the production of inflammatory mediators in human keratinocytes.9, 10 These deleterious effects may accelerate, or at least contribute to, premature skin aging, play a role in carcinogenesis and lead to hyperpigmentation and melasma.6, 8-10 The sun has long been the only source of blue light for humans. However, in recent years, our skin has also been exposed to artificial sources of blue light such as indoor lights (e.g. compact fluorescent lamps and light-emitting diodes [LEDs]) and electronic devices (e.g. smartphones, computers, tablets and television screens). Despite frequent exposure to artificial blue light, the sun has been shown to be the primary source of effective irradiance of blue light for immediate and persistent pigmentation and for potential oxidative stress in our skin.2, 6, 13 Indeed, for an office worker, the sun has been estimated to contribute to over 99% and 95% of the effects of blue light on skin pigmentation and oxidative stress, respectively.13 Altogether, these data show that it is necessary to protect the skin from the whole spectrum of solar radiation, including visible light, whatever the skin type. Recent recommendations issued by two panels of international experts have highlighted the need for better protection against solar radiation, including against visible light, as well as for additional training/education for healthcare professionals and patients on the use of photoprotection and the impact of visible light on overall skin health.14, 15 In addition to wearing protective clothing and seeking shade, applying sunscreens remains essential in many circumstances to protect the skin from the negative effects of the sun while taking advantage of the positive ones.2, 3, 14 Until very recently, the organic UV filters contained in sunscreens provided insufficient protection of the skin from the harmful effects of visible light.16, 17 Moreover, the safety and environmental impact of some of these organic filters has been called into question.17, 18 The ability of inorganic UV filters, such as zinc oxide (ZnO) and titanium dioxide (TiO2), to reflect and scatter visible light photons, together with their widely assumed good safety profile, may make them strong candidates for providing broader protection. However, these metal oxides make sunscreens appear white when applied to the skin, especially on darker skin types, and their use as nanoparticles in sunscreen formulations to reduce their white appearance after skin application make them less effective at protecting against visible light.19 To address this issue, Pierre Fabre Laboratories developed TriAsorB™ (phenylene bis-diphenyltriazine), a new organic filter providing ultra-broad–spectrum protection from UV to visible radiation, including high energy visible (HEV) light (400–450 nm).17, 20 This filter both absorbs and reflects UVB + UVA + visible radiation and prevents sunlight genotoxicity, in particular in the blue light spectral range.20 TriAsorB™ has been approved by the European SCCS for use as a filter in sunscreen products up to a concentration of 5% (CAS N°55,514–22-221). In this special issue, Boyer et al. assessed the in vitro blue light photostability and photoprotection properties of nine sunscreens containing the TriAsorB™ filter, together with three other organic UV filters22. They also assessed the effect of two of these sunscreens (with similar formulations, one non-tinted and the other tinted) on blue light-induced pigmentation in human subjects. The development of new filters requires the concurrent development of new clinical tests to evaluate the performance of innovative photoprotective products. Currently, there are international standardized methods for determining the SPF or UVA-protecting performance of sunscreens (ISO norms), but no international consensus has been reached for visible light spectrum assessments, although different methods have been proposed in the literature.22 Le Digabel et al. present a simple method, based on multispectral image analysis, for evaluating the performance of photoprotective products in human subjects22. They used this method to assess the long-wave UVA and HEV radiation absorption properties of seven products: a sunscreen containing the TriAsorB™ filter, five commercial photoprotective products containing organic UV filters (SPF 50+), and a control product (a hydrating cream containing no filter). The data presented here highlight the advances that have been made in the development of new products to protect our skin from the harmful effects of blue light, and in the application of new assessment methods for evaluating the real-world protection provided by sunscreens against all forms of photo-induced skin damage. The authors thank Laurence Rous, PhD, Emma Pilling, PhD and Marielle Romet, PhD (Synergy Pharm – Santé Active Edition) for medical writing and English editing assistance funded by Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique. Medical writing assistance was funded by Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique. No external funding sources were used to support this work. This article is published as part of a journal supplement wholly funded by Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique. ES received in the past consulting fees from Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique; BD does not declare any conflicts of interests; DB, HD, and AOB are employees of Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique, France. The authors report no other conflicts of interest associated with this work. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed." @default.
• W4386466723 created "2023-09-07" @default.
• W4386466723 creator A5002644565 @default.
• W4386466723 creator A5004655672 @default.
• W4386466723 creator A5049315257 @default.
• W4386466723 creator A5050203761 @default.
• W4386466723 creator A5080829078 @default.
• W4386466723 date "2023-09-06" @default.
• W4386466723 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W4386466723 title "Foreword" @default.
• W4386466723 cites W1487091099 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W2035030718 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W2047608542 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W2423598418 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W2524505159 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W2597162250 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W2889964778 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W2890315391 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W2968828671 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W2998884048 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W3019640062 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W3107184157 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W3136079049 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W3166760075 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W3180073790 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W3207406715 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W3208348202 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W4200012262 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W4210494471 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W4283359516 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W4283375764 @default.
• W4386466723 cites W4386467115 @default.
• W4386466723 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.19007" @default.
• W4386466723 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37671997" @default.
• W4386466723 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4386466723 type Work @default.
• W4386466723 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4386466723 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4386466723 hasAuthorship W4386466723A5002644565 @default.
• W4386466723 hasAuthorship W4386466723A5004655672 @default.
• W4386466723 hasAuthorship W4386466723A5049315257 @default.
• W4386466723 hasAuthorship W4386466723A5050203761 @default.
• W4386466723 hasAuthorship W4386466723A5080829078 @default.
• W4386466723 hasBestOaLocation W43864667231 @default.
• W4386466723 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4386466723 hasConceptScore W4386466723C71924100 @default.
• W4386466723 hasIssue "S6" @default.
• W4386466723 hasLocation W43864667231 @default.
• W4386466723 hasLocation W43864667232 @default.
• W4386466723 hasOpenAccess W4386466723 @default.
• W4386466723 hasPrimaryLocation W43864667231 @default.
• W4386466723 hasRelatedWork W1506200166 @default.
• W4386466723 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
• W4386466723 hasRelatedWork W2048182022 @default.
• W4386466723 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
• W4386466723 hasRelatedWork W2604872355 @default.
• W4386466723 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4386466723 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W4386466723 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
• W4386466723 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.
• W4386466723 hasRelatedWork W3108674512 @default.
• W4386466723 hasVolume "37" @default.
• W4386466723 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4386466723 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4386466723 workType "article" @default.