Search

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.

National legislations for the assessment of the skin sensitization potential of chemicals are increasingly based on the globally harmonized system (GHS). In this study, experimental data on 55 non-sensitizing and 45 sensitizing chemicals were evaluated according to GHS criteria and used to test the performance of computer (in silico) models for the prediction of skin sensitization. Statistic models (Vega, Case Ultra, TOPKAT), mechanistic models (Toxtree, OECD (Q)SAR toolbox, DEREK) or a hybrid model (TIMES-SS) were evaluated. Between three and nine of the substances evaluated were found in the individual training sets of various models. Mechanism based models performed better than statistical models and gave better predictivities depending on the stringency of the domain definition. Best performance was achieved by TIMES-SS, with a perfect prediction, whereby only 16% of the substances were within its reliability domain. Some models offer modules for potency; however predictions did not correlate well with the GHS sensitization subcategory derived from the experimental data. In conclusion, although mechanistic models can be used to a certain degree under well-defined conditions, at the present, the in silico models are not sufficiently accurate for broad application to predict skin sensitization potentials., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. 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.)

Contact allergies are complex diseases, and it is estimated that 15-20 % of the general population suffers from contact allergy, with increasing prevalence. Evaluation of the sensitization potential of a substance is usually carried out in animal models. Nowadays, there is much interest in reducing and ultimately replacing current animal tests. Furthermore, as of 2013, the EU has posed a ban on animal testing of cosmetic ingredients that includes skin sensitization. Therefore, predictive and robust in vitro tests are urgently needed. In order to establish alternatives to animal testing, the in vitro tests must mimic the very complex interactions between the sensitizing chemical and the different parts of the immune system. This review article summarizes recent efforts to develop in vitro tests for predicting skin sensitizers. Cell-based assays, in chemico methods and, to a lesser extent, in silico methods are presented together with a discussion of their current status. With considerable progress having been achieved during the last years, the rationale today is that data from different non-animal test methods will have to be combined in order to obtain reliable hazard and potency information on potential skin sensitizers.