Search

Background: Before introducing proteins from new or alternative dietary sources into the market, a compressive risk assessment including food allergic sensitization should be carried out in order to ensure their safety. We have recently proposed the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) concept to structure the current mechanistic understanding of the molecular and cellular pathways evidenced to drive IgE-mediated food allergies. This AOP framework offers the biological context to collect and structure existing in vitro methods and to identify missing assays to evaluate sensitizing potential of food proteins. Scope and approach: In this review, we provide a state-of-the-art overview of available in vitro approaches for assessing the sensitizing potential of food proteins, including their strengths and limitations. These approaches are structured by their potential to evaluate the molecular initiating and key events driving food sensitization. Key findings and conclusions: The application of the AOP framework offers the opportunity to anchor existing testing methods to specific building blocks of the AOP for food sensitization. In general, in vitro methods evaluating mechanisms involved in the innate immune response are easier to address than assays addressing the adaptive immune response due to the low precursor frequency of allergen-specific T and B cells. Novel ex vivo culture strategies may have the potential to become useful tools for investigating the sensitizing potential of food proteins. When applied in the context of an integrated testing strategy, the described approaches may reduce, if not replace, current animal testing approaches. A© 2019 Elsevier Ltd

Despite changing attitudes towards animal testing and current legislation to protect experimental animals, the rate of animal experiments seems to have changed little in recent years. On May 15–16, 2013, the In Vitro Testing Industrial Platform (IVTIP) held an open meeting to discuss the state of the art in alternative methods, how companies have, can, and will need to adapt and what drives and hinders regulatory acceptance and use. Several key messages arose from the meeting. First, industry and regulatory bodies should not wait for complete suites of alternative tests to become available, but should begin working with methods available right now (e.g., mining of existing animal data to direct future studies, implementation of alternative tests wherever scientifically valid rather than continuing to rely on animal tests) in non-animal and animal integrated strategies to reduce the numbers of animals tested. Sharing of information (communication), harmonization and standardization (coordination), commitment and collaboration are all required to improve the quality and speed of validation, acceptance, and implementation of tests. Finally, we consider how alternative methods can be used in research and development before formal implementation in regulations. Here we present the conclusions on what can be done already and suggest some solutions and strategies for the future.