Search

In regulatory toxicology, in vivo studies are still prevailing, and human-derived in vitro models are mostly used in testing for local toxicity to the skin and the eyes. A single in vitro model may be limited to address one or few molecular or cellular events leading to adverse outcomes. Hence, in many instances their regulatory use involves the combination of several in vitro models to assess the hazard potential of test substance. A so-called defined approach combines different testing methods and a 'data interpretation procedure' to obtain a comprehensive overall assessment which is used for the regulatory hazard classification of the test substance.Validation is a prerequisite of regulatory acceptance of new testing methods: This chapter provides an overview of the method development from an experimental method to a test guideline via application of GIVIMP (good in vitro method practice), standardization, validation to the regulatory adoption as an OECD test guidelines. Quandaries associated with the validation towards reference data from in vivo animal studies with limited accuracy and limited human relevance are discussed, as well as uncertainty and limitations arising from restricted applicability and technical and biological variance of the in vitro methods.This chapter provides an overview of human-derived in vitro models currently adopted as OECD test guidelines: From the first skin corrosion tests utilizing reconstructed human epidermis models (RhE), to models to test for skin irritation, phototoxicity, eye irritation, and skin sensitization. The latter is using a battery of different methods and defined approaches which are still under discussion for their regulatory adoption. They will be a vanguard of future applications of human-derived models in regulatory toxicology. RhEs for testing of genotoxicity and of dermal penetration and absorption, have been developed, underwent validation studies and may soon be adopted for regulatory use; these are included in this chapter.

For hazard classifications of chemicals, continuous data from animal- or nonanimal testing methods are often dichotomized into binary positive/negative outcomes by defining classification thresholds (CT). Experimental data are, however, subject to biological and technical variability. Each test method's precision is limited resulting in uncertainty of the positive/negative outcome if the experimental result is close to the CT. Borderline ranges (BR) around the CT were suggested, which represent ranges in which the study result is ambiguous, that is, positive or negative results are equally likely. The BR reflects a method's precision uncertainty. This article explores and compares different approaches to quantify the BR. Besides using the pooled standard deviation, we determine the BR by means of the median absolute deviation (MAD), with a sequential combination of both methods, and by using nonparametric bootstrapping. Furthermore, we quantify the BR for different hazardous effects, including nonanimal tests for skin corrosion, eye irritation, skin irritation, and skin sensitization as well as for an animal test on skin sensitization (the local lymph node assay, LLNA). Additionally, for one method (direct peptide reactivity assay) the BR was determined experimentally and compared to calculated BRs. Our results demonstrate that (i) the precision of the methods is determining the size of their BRs, (ii) there is no "perfect" method to derive a BR, alas, (iii) a consensus on BR is needed to account for the limited precision of testing methods., (© 2021 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.)

The availability of reference data is a key requirement for the development of new approach methods (NAM), i.e., in vitro, in chemico and in silico methods and integrated approaches, like defined approaches (DA), which combine these data sources. Reference data are of even greater importance for regulatory acceptance. In contrast to most other adverse effects, human skin sensitization data on many chemicals are available, next to data from animal studies, such as the local lymph node assay (LLNA). Skin sensitization NAM data can therefore be compared to different reference datasets. Recent publications and validation at the OECD focused on human and LLNA reference data. The “2 out of 3” DA (2o3 DA) is the first DA for skin sensitization solely based on experimental data from validated tests and was recently adopted as an OECD test guideline. Here we review the predictivity of the 2o3 DA on multiple human and LLNA reference datasets. Concomitantly, we compare the predictivity of the LLNA for human data within the same datasets. Comparing predictivity of methods not only bilaterally (NAM or DA vs. animal method) but including human data in a triangle “NAM data – animal data – human data” offers a comprehensive assessment of the NAM’s and DA’s predictivity. In all these assessments, the 2o3 DA was superior to the LLNA in predicting human skin sensitization hazard. This highlights the importance of a holistic view of reference data instead of limiting validation of NAMs and DAs to data from a single animal test only.

While the skin sensitization hazard of substances can be identified using non-animal methods, the classification of potency into UN GHS sub-categories 1A and 1B remains challenging. The kinetic direct peptide reactivity assay (kDPRA) is a modification of the DPRA wherein the reaction kinetics of a test substance towards a synthetic cysteine-containing peptide are evaluated. For this purpose, several concentrations of the test substance are incubated with the synthetic peptide for several incubation times. The reaction is stopped by addition of monobromobimane, which forms a fluorescent complex with the free cysteine of the model peptide. The relative remaining non-depleted amount of peptide is determined. Kinetic rate constants are derived from the depletion vs concentration and time matrix and used to distinguish between UN GHS sub-category 1A sensitizers and test substances in sub-category 1B/not classified test substances. In this study, we present a ring trial of the kDPRA with 24 blind-coded test substances in seven laboratories. The intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility were 96% and 88%, respectively (both for differentiating GHS Cat 1A sensitizers from GHS Cat 1B/not classified). Following an independent peer review, the kDPRA was considered to be acceptable for the identification of GHS Cat 1A skin sensitizers. Besides GHS Cat 1A identification, the kDPRA can be used as part of a defined approach(es) with a quantitative data integration procedure for skin sensitization potency assessment. For this aim, next to reproducibility of classification, the quantitative reproducibility and variability of the rate constants were quantified in this study.

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.)

Test methods to assess the skin sensitization potential of a substance usually use threshold criteria to dichotomize continuous experimental read-outs into yes/no conclusions. The threshold criteria are prescribed in the respective OECD test guidelines and the conclusion is used for regulatory hazard assessment, i.e., classification and labelling of the substance. We can identify a borderline range (BR) around the classification threshold within which test results are inconclusive due to a test method's biological and technical variability. We quantified BRs in the prediction models of the non-animal test methods DPRA, LuSens and h-CLAT, and of the animal test LLNA, respectively. Depending on the size of the BR, we found that between 6% and 28% of the substances in the sets tested with these methods were considered borderline. When the results of individual non-animal test methods were combined into integrated testing strategies (ITS), borderline test results of individual tests also affected the overall assessment of the skin sensitization potential of the testing strategy. This was analyzed for the 2-out-of-3 ITS: Four out of 40 substances (10%) were considered borderline. Based on our findings we propose expanding the standard binary classification of substances into "positive"/"negative" or "hazardous"/"non-hazardous" by adding a "borderline" or "inconclusive" alert for cases where test results fall within the borderline range.

In general, no single non-animal method can cover the complexity of any given animal test. Therefore, fixed sets of in vitro (and in chemico) methods have been combined into testing strategies for skin and eye irritation and skin sensitisation testing, with pre-defined prediction models for substance classification. Many of these methods have been adopted as OECD test guidelines. Various testing strategies have been successfully validated in extensive in-house and inter-laboratory studies, but they have not yet received formal acceptance for substance classification. Therefore, under the European REACH Regulation, data from testing strategies can, in general, only be used in so-called weight-of-evidence approaches. While animal testing data generated under the specific REACH information requirements are per se sufficient, the sufficiency of weight-of-evidence approaches can be questioned under the REACH system, and further animal testing can be required. This constitutes an imbalance between the regulatory acceptance of data from approved non-animal methods and animal tests that is not justified on scientific grounds. To ensure that testing strategies for local tolerance testing truly serve to replace animal testing for the REACH registration 2018 deadline (when the majority of existing chemicals have to be registered), clarity on their regulatory acceptance as complete replacements is urgently required., (2016 FRAME.)

Because of ethical and regulatory reasons, several nonanimal test methods to assess the skin sensitization potential of chemicals have been developed and validated. In contrast to in vivo methods, they lack or provide limited metabolic capacity. For this reason, identification of pro-haptens but also pre-haptens, which require molecular transformations to gain peptide reactivity, is a challenge for these methods. In this study, 27 pre- and pro-haptens were tested using nonanimal test methods. Of these, 18 provided true positive results in the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA; sensitivity of 67%), although lacking structural alerts for direct peptide reactivity. The reaction mechanisms leading to peptide depletion in the DPRA were therefore elucidated using mass spectrometry. Hapten-peptide adducts were identified for 13 of the 18 chemicals indicating that these pre-haptens were activated and that peptide binding occurred. Positive results for five of the 18 chemicals can be explained by dipeptide formations or the oxidation of the sulfhydryl group of the peptide. Nine of the 27 chemicals were tested negative in the DPRA. Of these, four yielded true positive results in the keratinocyte and dendritic cell based assays. Likewise, 16 of the 18 chemicals tested positive in the DPRA were also positive in either one or both of the cell-based assays. A combination of DPRA, KeratinoSens, and h-CLAT used in a 2 out of 3 weight of evidence (WoE) approach identified 22 of the 27 pre- and pro-haptens correctly (sensitivity of 81%), exhibiting a similar sensitivity as for directly acting haptens. This analysis shows that the combination of in chemico and in vitro test methods is suitable to identify pre-haptens and the majority of pro-haptens.

The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) test is commonly used for the identification of severe ocular irritants (GHS Category 1), but it is not recommended for the identification of ocular irritants (GHS Category 2). The incorporation of human reconstructed tissue model-based tests into a tiered test strategy to identify ocular non-irritants and replace the Draize rabbit eye irritation test has been suggested (OECD TG 405). The value of the EpiOcular™ Eye Irritation Test (EIT) for the prediction of ocular non-irritants (GHS No Category) has been demonstrated, and an OECD Test Guideline (TG) was drafted in 2014. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the BCOP test, in conjunction with corneal histopathology (as suggested for the evaluation of the depth of the injury( and/or the EpiOcular-EIT, could be used to predict the eye irritation potential of agrochemical formulations according to the UN GHS, US EPA and Brazil ANVISA classification schemes. We have assessed opacity, permeability and histopathology in the BCOP assay, and relative tissue viability in the EpiOcular-EIT, for 97 agrochemical formulations with available in vivo eye irritation data. By using the OECD TG 437 protocol for liquids, the BCOP test did not result in sufficient correct predictions of severe ocular irritants for any of the three classification schemes. The lack of sensitivity could be improved somewhat by the inclusion of corneal histopathology, but the relative viability in the EpiOcular-EIT clearly outperformed the BCOP test for all three classification schemes. The predictive capacity of the EpiOcular-EIT for ocular non-irritants (UN GHS No Category) for the 97 agrochemical formulations tested (91% sensitivity, 72% specificity and 82% accuracy for UN GHS classification) was comparable to that obtained in the formal validation exercise underlying the OECD draft TG. We therefore conclude that the EpiOcular-EIT is currently the best in vitro method for the prediction of the eye irritation potential of liquid agrochemical formulations., (2015 FRAME.)

To encourage the development and validation of alternative toxicity test methods, the effort required for validation of test methods proposed for regulatory purposes should be minimized. Performance standards (PS) facilitate efficient validation by requiring limited testing. Based on the validated method, PS define accuracy and reliability values that must be met by the new similar test method. The OECD adopted internationally harmonized PS for evaluating new endpoint versions of the local lymph node assay (LLNA). However, in the process of evaluating a lymph node cell count alternative (LNCC), simultaneous conduct of the regulatory LLNA showed that this standard test may not always perform in perfect accord with its own PS. The LNCC results were similar to the concurrent LLNA. Discrepancies between PS, LLNA and LNCC were largely associated with "borderline" substances and the variability of both endpoints. Two key lessons were learned: firstly, the understandable focus on substances close to the hazard classification borderline are more likely to emphasise issues of biological variability, which should be taken into account during the evaluation of results; secondly, variability in the results for the standard assay should be considered when selecting reference chemicals for PS., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The usefulness of in vitro systems to predict acute inhalation toxicity was investigated. Nineteen substances were tested in three-dimensional human airway epithelial models, EpiAirway™ and MucilAir™, and in A549 and 3T3 monolayer cell cultures. IC(50) values were compared to rat four-hour LC(50) values classified according to EPA and GHS hazard categories. Best results were achieved with a prediction model distinguishing toxic from non-toxic substances, with satisfactory specificities and sensitivities. Using a self-made four-level prediction model to classify substances into four in vitro hazard categories, in vivo-in vitro concordance was mediocre, but could be improved by excluding substances causing pulmonary edema and emphysema in vivo. None of the test systems was outstanding, and there was no evidence that tissue or monolayer systems using respiratory tract cells provide an added value. However, the test systems only reflected bronchiole epithelia and alveolar cells and investigated cytotoxicity. Effects occurring in other cells by other mechanisms could not be recognised. Further work should optimise test protocols and expand the set of substances tested to define applicability domains. In vivo respiratory toxicity data for in vitro comparisons should distinguish different modes of action, and their relevance for human health effects should be ensured., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Allergic contact dermatitis is a common skin disease and is elicited by repeated skin contact with an allergen. In the regulatory context, currently only data from animal experiments are acceptable to assess the skin sensitizing potential of substances. Animal welfare and EU Cosmetic Directive/Regulation call for the implementation of animal-free alternatives for safety assessments. The mechanisms that trigger skin sensitization are complex and various steps are involved. Therefore, a single in vitro method may not be able to accurately assess this endpoint. Non-animal methods are being developed and validated and can be used for testing strategies that ensure a reliable prediction of skin sensitization potentials. In this study, the predictivities of four in vitro assays, one in chemico and one in silico method addressing three different steps in the development of skin sensitization were assessed using 54 test substances of known sensitizing potential. The predictivity of single tests and combinations of these assays were compared. These data were used to develop an in vitro testing scheme and prediction model for the detection of skin sensitizers based on protein reactivity, activation of the Keap-1/Nrf2 signaling pathway and dendritic cell activation., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Most endocrine disruptors interact with hormone receptors or steroid biosynthesis and metabolism, thereby modifying the physiological function of endogenous hormones. Here, we present an alternative testing paradigm for detection of endocrine modes of action that replace and reduce animal testing through refinement. Receptor mediated endocrine effects were assessed using the yeast-based receptor-mediated transcriptional activation YES/YAS assays and effects on steroid hormone biosynthesis were assessed using the human cell line H295R in the steroidogenesis assay. In our testing paradigm we propose to complement the in vitro assays with a single in vivo repeated dose study in which plasma samples are analyzed for their metabolome profile in addition to classical parameters such as histopathology. The combination of these methods does not only contribute to refinement and reduction of animal testing, but also has significantly increased the efficient allocation of resources and allows for a sound assessment of the endocrine disruption potential of compounds. Thus, this proposal constitutes a potentially attractive alternative to EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program to identify mammalian, systemic endocrine modes of action. Data on 14 reference substances for which the in vitro YES/YAS and steroidogenesis assays and the in vivo metabolome analysis were performed to assess their putative endocrine modes of action are presented here., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Data on eye irritation are generally needed for the hazard identification of chemicals. As the Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) test has been accepted by many regulatory agencies for the identification of corrosive and severe ocular irritants since September 2009 (OECD Test Guideline 437, TG 437), we evaluated this alternative method for routine testing at BASF. We demonstrated our technical proficiency by testing the reference standards recommended in TG 437, and 21 additional materials with published BCOP and in vivo data. Our results matched the published in vitro data very well, but with some intentionally selected false negatives (FNs) and false positives (FPs), the concordance was 77% (24/31), with FN and FP rates of 20% (2/10) and 24% (5/21), respectively. In addition, we tested 21 in-house materials, demonstrating the utility of the BCOP assay for our own test material panel. Histopathological assessment of the corneas by light microscopy was also conducted, as this was suggested as a means of improving the identification of FNs. The histopathology corrected the classification of some FNs, but also increased the number of FPs. Parallel to the test method evaluation, we compared three new opacitometer models with the current standard device. We recommend the use of an opacitometer developed in our BASF laboratory, which has certified components and electronic data storage, resulting in what we consider to be excellent sensitivity, stability and reproducibility., (2011 FRAME.)