Search

The Dermal Sensitisation Thresholds (DST) are Thresholds of Toxicological Concern, which can be used to justify exposure-based waiving when conducting a skin sensitisation risk assessment. This study aimed to update the published DST values by expanding the size of the Local Lymph Node Assay dataset upon which they are based, whilst assigning chemical reactivity using an in silico expert system (Derek Nexus). The potency values within the expanded dataset fitted a similar gamma distribution to that observed for the original dataset. Derek Nexus was used to classify the sensitisation activity of the 1152 chemicals in the expanded dataset and to predict which chemicals belonged to a High Potency Category (HPC). This two-step classification led to three updated thresholds: a non-reactive DST of 710 μg/cm 2 (based on 79 sensitisers), a reactive (non-HPC) DST of 73 μg/cm 2 (based on 331 sensitisers) and an HPC DST of 1.0 μg/cm 2 (based on 146 sensitisers). Despite the dataset containing twice as many sensitisers, these values are similar to the previously published thresholds, highlighting their robustness and increasing confidence in their use. By classifying reactivity in silico the updated DSTs can be applied within a skin sensitisation risk assessment in a reproducible, scalable and accessible manner., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Allergic contact dermatitis is an important occupational health issue, and there is a need to identify accurately those chemicals that have the potential to induce skin sensitisation. Hazard identification was performed initially using animal (guinea pig and mouse) models. More recently, as a result of the drive towards non-animal methods, alternative in vitro and in silico approaches have been developed. Some of these new in vitro methods have been formally validated and have been assigned OECD Test Guideline status. The performance of some of these recently developed in vitro methods, and of 2 quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) approaches, with a series of methacrylate esters has been reviewed and reported previously. In this article that first review has been extended further with additional data and complementary analyses. Results obtained using in vitro methods (Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay, DPRA; ARE-Nrf2 luciferase test methods, KeratinoSens and LuSens; Epidermal Sensitisation Assay, EpiSensA; human Cell Line Activation Test, h-CLAT, and the myeloid U937 Skin Sensitisation test, U-SENS), and 2 QSAR approaches (DEREK™-nexus and TIMES-SS), with 11 methacrylate esters and methacrylic acid are reported here, and compared with existing data from the guinea pig maximisation test and the local lymph node assay. With this series of chemicals it was found that some in vitro tests (DPRA and ARE-Nrf2 luciferase) performed well in comparison with animal test results and available human skin sensitisation data. Other in vitro tests (EpiSensA and h-CLAT) proved rather more problematic. Results with DEREK™-nexus and TIMES-SS failed to reflect accurately the skin sensitisation potential of the methacrylate esters. The implications for assessment of skin sensitising activity are discussed., (Copyright © 2020 The Author. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Tests for identification of chemical skin sensitisation hazard have been available for decades, evolving from guinea pig assays, through the first validated method, the local lymph node assay, to several validated in vitro methods. These methods successfully identify the hazard for chemicals, with an accuracy in the region of 85%. However, in some regulations, consideration may be given to their application to proteins. Here, the scientific relevance of the use of skin sensitisation tests for the assessment of the allergenic potential of proteins is reviewed and considered in the context of both: (a) what is known of the allergenic properties of proteins compared with chemicals, and (b) current understanding of the extent to which proteins actually give rise to contact allergy. There is no doubt that many foreign proteins can behave as respiratory sensitisers and food allergens, and that certain proteins can also cause cutaneous allergy via skin contact, typically mediated via immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibody. However, the absence of any specificity in predictions from existing skin sensitisation test methods, together with the lack of a suitable body of either positive or negative controls, dictates that use of these tests with proteins is without any scientific justification or predictive merit., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Skin sensitisation is the regulatory endpoint that has been at the centre of concerted efforts to replace animal testing in recent years, as demonstrated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) adoption of five non-animal methods addressing mechanisms under the first three key events of the skin sensitisation adverse outcome pathway. Nevertheless, the currently adopted methods, when used in isolation, are not sufficient to fulfil regulatory requirements on the skin sensitisation potential and potency of chemicals comparable to that provided by the regulatory animal tests. For this reason, a number of defined approaches integrating data from these methods with other relevant information have been proposed and documented by the OECD. With the aim to further enhance regulatory consideration and adoption of defined approaches, the European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal testing in collaboration with the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods hosted, on 4-5 October 2016, a workshop on the international regulatory applicability and acceptance of alternative non-animal approaches, i.e., defined approaches, to skin sensitisation assessment of chemicals used in a variety of sectors. The workshop convened representatives from more than 20 regulatory authorities from the European Union, United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Brazil and China. There was a general consensus among the workshop participants that to maximise global regulatory acceptance of data generated with defined approaches, international harmonisation and standardisation are needed. Potential assessment criteria were defined for a systematic evaluation of existing defined approaches that would facilitate their translation into international standards, e.g., into a performance-based Test Guideline. Informed by the discussions at the workshop, the ICATM members propose practical ways to further promote the regulatory use and facilitate adoption of defined approaches for skin sensitisation assessments.

In all current in vitro skin sensitisation assays, DMSO is used to dissolve water-insoluble chemicals. However, our previous study suggested the superiority of the modified IL-8 Luc assay (mIL-8 Luc), in which X-VIVO TM 15 is used to dissolve chemicals, over the original assay using DMSO (oIL-8 Luc). In this study, to confirm the superiority of the mIL-8 Luc, we first increased the number of chemicals examined and demonstrated the superiority of the mIL-8 Luc, in which the mIL-8 Luc provided 87.6% of sensitivity, 74.2% of specificity, and 84.6% of accuracy. Next, to clarify the cause of false negative judgment by the mIL-8 Luc, we examined the effects of physical properties of chemicals on judgment. The results demonstrated that high molecular weight, high LogKo/w, or poor water solubility, did not cause false negative judgment. When it was accepted as an OECD test guideline, the criteria of the mIL-8 Luc to determine sensitisers were modified to further decrease false negative judgment by poor solubility. By applying the new criteria, the test guideline IL-8 Luc assay (tgIL-8 Luc) improved sensitivity but decreased specificity and increased the number of chemicals that cannot be judged. To overcome this problem, we examined a simple combination of the tgIL-8 Luc with direct peptide reactive assay (DPRA), which could improve specificity and decrease the number of the chemicals that cannot be judged. These data suggest that the tgIL-8 Luc is a promising in vitro skin sensitisation assay in combination with other in vitro or in chemico methods.

Established in vitro assays for regulatory testing of skin sensitisation partly suffer from only moderate sensitivity, specificity, and predictivity when testing specific groups of chemicals. This may be due to limited biomarker response in vitro in cell types that interact as crucial players of in vivo skin sensitisation pathogenesis. Here, we propose a molecular approach to overcome this limitation. In our model, we apply genome editing and blocking of immunoregulatory molecules to increase the range of biomarker modulation by sensitising chemicals. To this end, aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) knockout was done by CRISPR/Cas9 technology in THP-1 cells and combined with Programmed Cell Death-Ligand (PD-L)1 blockade. AhR-knockout THP-1 in coculture with HaCaT keratinocytes showed increased CD54 expression compared to wild type cells after stimulation with 10 µmol/L dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB) that was further enhanced by anti-PD-L1. After stimulation of AhR-knockout THP-1 with 200 µmol/L mercaptobenzothiazol or 10 µmol/L DNCB, cocultivated Jurkat T cells significantly increased expression of T cell receptor-associated CD3. No such increase was detected after prior treatment of THP-1 with 150 µmol/L of irritant sodium lauryl sulphate. Additionally, higher levels of inflammatory cytokines MIP-3α, MIP-1β, TNF-α, and IL-8 were found in supernatants of enhanced loose-fit co-culture based sensitisation assay (eLCSA) after substance treatment. Hence, eLCSA allowed to discriminate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers. Thus, inhibition of immunoinhibitory pathway signalling by combining AhR knockout and PD-L1 antibody blockage into an assay involving main acting cell types in skin sensitisation may increase sensitivity and specificity of such assays and allow potency derivation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oil body (OB), a subcellular organelle that stores oil in plant seeds, is considered a new transdermal drug delivery system. With the increasing understanding of the OB and its main protein (oleosin), numerous studies have been conducted on OB as "carrier" for the expression of exogenous proteins. In our previous study, oil body fused with aFGF (OLAF) was obtained using a plant oil body expression system that had been preliminarily proven to be effective in accelerating the healing of skin wounds. However, no dermal toxicological information on OLAF is available. To ensure the dermal safety of OLAF, a series of tests (the acute dermal toxicity test, 21-day repeat dermal toxicity test, dermal irritation test and skin sensitisation test) were conducted after optimising the extraction protocol of OLAF. To improve the extraction rate of OLAF, response surface methodology (RSM) was first employed to optimise the extraction conditions. Then, Wistar rats were exposed to OLAF (400 mg·kg−1 body weight) in two different ways (6 hours/time for 24 hours and 1 time/day for 21 days) to evaluate the acute dermal toxicity and 21-day repeated dermal toxicity of OLAF. In the acute dermal toxicity test, clinical observations were conducted to evaluate the toxicity, behaviour, and health of the animals for 14 consecutive days. Similarly, the clinical signs, body weight, haematological and biochemical parameters, histopathological changes and other indicators were also detected during the 21 days administration. For the dermal irritation test, single and multiple doses of OLAF (125 mg·kg−1 body weight) were administered to albino rabbits for 14 days (1 time/day). The irritation reaction on the skin of each albino rabbit was recorded and scored. Meanwhile, skin sensitisation to OLAF was conducted using guinea pigs for a period of 28 days. Suitable extraction conditions for OLAF (PBS concentration 0.01, pH of PBS 8.6, solid–liquid ratio 1:385 g·mL−1) were obtained using RSM. Under these conditions, the extraction rate and particle size of OLAF were 7.29% and 1290 nm, respectively. In the tests of acute dermal toxicity and 21-day repeated dermal toxicity, no mortality or significant differences were observed in terms of clinical signs, body weight, haematological parameters, biochemical parameters and anatomopathological analysis. With respect to the dermal irritation test and skin sensitisation test, no differences in erythema, oedema or other abnormalities were observed between treatment and control groups on gross and histopathological examinations. The results of this study suggest that OLAF does not cause obvious toxicity, skin sensitisation or irritation in animals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Skin sensitisation associated with allergic contact dermatitis is an important occupational and environmental disease. The identification of skin sensitisation hazards was traditionally performed using animal tests; originally guinea pig assays and subsequently the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA). More recently there has, for a variety of reasons, been an increased interest in, and requirement for, non-animal assays. There are now available both validated in vitro assays and a variety of approaches based on consideration of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR). With the increased availability and use of non-animal alternatives for skin sensitisation testing there is a continuing need to monitor the performance of these approaches using series of chemicals that do not normally form part of validation exercises. Here we report studies conducted with 11 methacrylate esters and methacrylic acid in which results obtained with 3 validated in vitro tests for which there are OECD guidelines (the Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay, DPRA; ARE-Nrf2 luciferase test methods, and – with some chemicals – a dendritic cell activation test, the myeloid U937 Skin Sensitisation test [U-SENS] assay) have been compared with QSAR approaches (DEREK and TIMES-SS), and with LLNA and guinea pig maximisation test (GPMT) data. The conclusions drawn from these data are that – with this series of chemicals at least – there is a strong correlation between the results of animal tests and the in vitro assays considered, but not with either DEREK or TIMES-SS. • Skin sensitising activity of methacrylate esters. • Comparison of animal data with data from alternative methods. • Performance of in vitro and in silico approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predictive testing to characterise substances for their skin sensitisation potential has historically been based on animal models such as the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) and the Guinea Pig Maximisation Test (GPMT). In recent years, EU regulations, have provided a strong incentive to develop non-animal alternatives, such as expert systems software. Here we selected three different types of expert systems: VEGA (statistical), Derek Nexus (knowledge-based) and TIMES-SS (hybrid), and evaluated their performance using two large sets of animal data: one set of 1249 substances from eChemportal and a second set of 515 substances from NICEATM. A model was considered successful at predicting skin sensitisation potential if it had at least the same balanced accuracy as the LLNA and the GPMT had in predicting the other outcomes, which ranged from 79% to 86%. We found that the highest balanced accuracy of any of the expert systems evaluated was 65% when making global predictions. For substances within the domain of TIMES-SS, however, balanced accuracies for the two datasets were found to be 79% and 82%. In those cases where a chemical was within the TIMES-SS domain, the TIMES-SS skin sensitisation hazard prediction had the same confidence as the result from LLNA or GPMT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Propylene glycol (PG) has widespread use in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, fragrances and personal care products. PG is not classified as hazardous under the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) but poses an intriguing scientific and regulatory conundrum with respect to allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), the uncertainty being whether and to what extent PG has the potential to induce skin sensitisation. In this article we review the results of predictive tests for skin sensitisation with PG, and clinical evidence for ACD. Patch testing in humans points to PG having the potential to be a weak allergen under certain conditions, and an uncommon cause of ACD in subjects without underlying/pre-disposing skin conditions. In clear contrast PG is negative in predictive toxicology tests for skin sensitisation, including guinea pig and mouse models (e.g. local lymph node assay), validated in vitro test methods that measure various key events in the pathway leading to skin sensitisation, and predictive methods in humans (Human Repeat Insult Patch and Human Maximisation Tests). We here explore the possible scientific basis for this intriguing inconsistency, recognising there are arguably no known contact allergens that are universally negative in, in vitro , animal and human predictive tests methods. • Propylene glycol (PG) a weak allergen in humans. • Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) appears limited to individuals with underlying/pre-disposing skin conditions. • PG is negative in predictive toxicology tests for skin sensitisation. • PG represents a dilemma with respect to classification under GHS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of a European Chemicals Bureau contract relating to the evaluation of (Q)SARs for toxicological endpoints of regulatory importance, we have reviewed and analysed (Q)SARs for skin sensitisation. Here we consider some recently published global (Q)SAR approaches against the OECD principles and present re-analysis of the data. Our analyses indicate that "statistical" (Q)SARs which aim to be global in their applicability tend to be insufficiently robust mechanistically, leading to an unacceptably high failure rate. Our conclusions are that, for skin sensitisation, the mechanistic chemistry is very important and consequently the best non-animal approach currently applicable to predict skin sensitisation potential is with the help of an expert system. This would assign compounds into mechanistic applicability domains and apply mechanism-based (Q)SARs specific for those domains and, very importantly, recognise when a compound is outside its range of competence. In such situations, it would call for human expert input supported by experimental chemistry studies as necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, several non-animal approaches contributing to the identification of skin sensitisation hazard have been introduced. Their validation and acceptance has largely been directed towards regulatory classification. Considering the driving force for replacement of in vivo tests centred on cosmetics, it is reasonable to ask how well the new approaches perform in this respect. In the present study, 219 substances, largely cosmetic raw materials (including dyes, preservatives and fragrances), have been evaluated in our Defined Approach integrating a stacking meta model (version 5), incorporating the individual outcomes of 3 in vitro validated methods (Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay, Keratinosens™, U-SENS™), 2 in silico tools (TIMES SS, TOXTREE) and physicochemical parameters (volatility, pH). Stacking meta model outcomes were compared with existing local lymph node assay (LLNA) data. Non-sensitisers comprised 68/219; 86 were weak/moderate and 65 were stronger sensitisers. The model version revision demonstrate the gain to discriminate sensitizers to non-sensitiser when the in silico TIMES model is incorporated as input parameter. The 85% to 91% accuracy for the cosmetics categories, indicates the stacking meta model offers value for the next generation risk assessment framework. These results pinpoint the power of the stacking meta model relying on a confidence based on the probability given in any individual prediction. • Multiple non-animal approaches for identifying skin sensitisation hazard exist. • Distilling information from many inputs can refine and add probability to this. • A Stacking Meta-model offers such a system and is now in version 5. • The model has been applied successfully to a range of cosmetic ingredients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]