Search

While the skin sensitization hazard of substances can already be identified using non-animal methods, the classification of potency sub-categories GHS-1A and 1B is still challenging. Potency can be measured by the dose at which an effect is observed; since the protein-adduct formation is determining the dose of the allergen in the skin, peptide reactivity was used to assess the potency. The Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA; one concentration and reaction-time) did not sufficiently discriminate between sub-categories 1A and 1B (56% accuracy compared to LLNA data, n=124). An extended protocol termed 'quantitative DPRA' (three concentrations and one reaction-time), discriminated sub-categories GHS 1A and 1B with an accuracy of 81% or 57% compared to LLNA (n=36) or human (n=14) data, respectively. The analysis of the Cys-adducts was already sufficient; additional analysis of Lys-adducts did not improve the predictivity. An additional modification, the 'kinetic DPRA' (several concentrations and reaction-times) was used to approximate the rate constant of Cys-peptide-adduct formation. 35 of 38 substances were correctly assigned to the potency sub-categories (LLNA data), and the predictivity for 14 human data was equally high. These results warrant the kinetic DPRA for further validation in order to fully replace in vivo testing for assessing skin sensitization including potency sub-classification., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The molecular initiating event (MIE) of skin sensitization is the binding of a hapten to dermal proteins. This can be assessed using the in chemico direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) or in silico tools such as the QSAR Toolbox and TIMES SS. In this study, the suitability of these methods was analyzed by comparing their results to in vivo sensitization data of LLNA and human studies. Compared to human data, 84% of non-sensitizers and sensitizers yielded consistent results in the DPRA. In silico tools resulted in 'no alert' for 83%-100% of the non-sensitizers, but alerted only 55%-61% of the sensitizers. The inclusion of biotic and abiotic transformation simulations yielded more alerts for sensitizers, but simultaneously dropped the number of non-alerted non-sensitizers. In contrast to the DPRA, in silico tools were more consistent with results of the LLNA than human data. Interestingly, the new "DPRA profilers" (QSAR Toolbox) provided unsatisfactory results. Additionally, the results were combined in the '2 out of 3' prediction model with in vitro data derived from LuSens and h-CLAT. Using DPRA results, the model identified 90% of human sensitizers and non-sensitizers; using in silico results (including abiotic and biotic activations) instead of DPRA results led to a comparable high predictivity., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Allergic contact dermatitis can develop following repeated exposure to allergenic substances. To date, hazard identification is still based on animal studies as non-animal alternatives have not yet gained global regulatory acceptance. Several non-animal methods addressing key-steps of the adverse outcome pathway (OECD, 2012) will most likely be needed to fully address this effect. Among the initial cellular events is the activation of keratinocytes and currently only one method, the KeratinoSens™, has been formally validated to address this event. In this study, a further method, the LuSens assay, that uses a human keratinocyte cell line harbouring a reporter gene construct composed of the antioxidant response element (ARE) of the rat NADPH:quinone oxidoreductase 1 gene and the luciferase gene. The assay was validated in house using a selection of 74 substances which included the LLNA performance standards. The predictivity of the LuSens assay for skin sensitization hazard identification was comparable to other non-animal methods, in particular to the KeratinoSens™. When used as part of a testing battery based on the OECD adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization, a combination of the LuSens assay, the DPRA and a dendritic cell line activation test attained predictivities similar to that of the LLNA., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)