Search

Introduction: Prediction models of most toxicological assays translate continuous data to binary classifications (“positive” or “negative”) using cutoff values. Mostly these cutoffs do not consider...

Over the last decade, research into methodologies to identify skin sensitization hazards has led to the adoption of several non-animal methods as OECD guidelines. However, predictive accuracy beyond the chemical domains of the individual validation studies remains largely untested. In the present study, skin sensitization test results from in vitro and in chemico methods for 12 plant extracts and 15 polymeric materials are reported and compared to available in vivo skin sensitization data. Eight plant extracts were tested in the DPRA and h-CLAT, with the 2 out of 3 approach resulting in a balanced accuracy of 50%. The balanced accuracy for the 11 plant extracts assessed in the SENS-IS was 88%. Excluding 5 polymers inconclusive in vitro, the remainder, assessed using the 2 out of 3 approach, resulted in 63% balanced accuracy. The SENS-IS method, excluding one polymeric material due to technical inapplicability, showed 68% balanced accuracy. Although based on limited numbers, the results presented here indicate that some substance subgroups may not be in the applicability domains of the method used and careful analysis is required before positive or negative results can be accepted.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In vivo acute systemic testing is a regulatory requirement for agrochemical formulations. GHS specifies an alternative computational approach (GHS additivity formula) for calculating the acute toxicity of mixtures. We collected acute systemic toxicity data from formulations that contained one of several acutely-toxic active ingredients. The resulting acute data set includes 210 formulations tested for oral toxicity, 128 formulations tested for inhalation toxicity and 31 formulations tested for dermal toxicity. The GHS additivity formula was applied to each of these formulations and compared with the experimental in vivo result. In the acute oral assay, the GHS additivity formula misclassified 110 formulations using the GHS classification criteria (48% accuracy) and 119 formulations using the USEPA classification criteria (43% accuracy). With acute inhalation, the GHS additivity formula misclassified 50 formulations using the GHS classification criteria (61% accuracy) and 34 formulations using the USEPA classification criteria (73% accuracy). For acute dermal toxicity, the GHS additivity formula misclassified 16 formulations using the GHS classification criteria (48% accuracy) and 20 formulations using the USEPA classification criteria (36% accuracy). This data indicates the acute systemic toxicity of many formulations is not the sum of the ingredients' toxicity (additivity); but rather, ingredients in a formulation can interact to result in lower or higher toxicity than predicted by the GHS additivity formula.

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.

Several in vitro methods have gained regulatory acceptance for the prediction of skin irritation and corrosion. However, the test guidelines for the majority of in vitro methods do not state whether they are applicable to agrochemical formulations. Hence, we would like to share the results from our routine skin corrosion and irritation testing of agrochemical formulations in which both in vitro (according to OECD TG 431 and OECD TG 439) and in vivo (according to OECD TG 404) tests were conducted as regulatory requirements. The in vitro skin irritation test did not correlate well with the CLP classification by in vivo results (44% sensitivity, 60% specificity, and 54% accuracy, based on 65 data pairs). This indicates a lack of applicability of the current protocol of the in vitro skin irritation test for agrochemical formulations. The data set did not contain formulations which were skin corrosive in vivo and hence its applicability could not be assessed. The correlation of in vitro skin corrosion testing to formulations which were not corrosive in vivo was, however, high (95% specificity based on 81 data pairs).

In vitro methods have gained regulatory acceptance for the prediction of serious eye damage (UN GHS Cat 1). However, the majority of in vitro methods do not state whether they are applicable to agrochemical formulations. This manuscript presents a study of up to 27 agrochemical formulations tested in three in vitro assays (three versions of the bovine corneal opacity and permeability test (BCOP, OECD TG 437) assay, the isolated chicken eye test (ICE, OECD TG 438) and the EpiOcular™ ET-50 assay). The results were compared with already-available in vivo data. In the BCOP only one of the four, one of five in the ICE and six of eleven tested formulations in the EpiOcular™ ET-50 Neat Protocol resulted in the correct UN GHS Cat 1 prediction. Overpredictions occurred in all assays. These data indicate a lack of applicability of the three in vitro methods to reliably predict UN GHS Cat 1 of agrochemical formulations. In order to ensure animal-free identification of seriously eye damaging agrochemical formulations testing protocols and/or prediction models need to be modified or classification rules should be tailored to in vitro testing rather than using in vivo Draize data as a standard.

Several in vitro OECD test guidelines address key events 1-3 of the adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization, but none are validated for sensitizer potency assessment. The reaction of sensitizing molecules with skin proteins is the molecular initiating event and appears to be rate-limiting, as chemical reactivity strongly correlates with sensitizer potency. The kinetic direct peptide reactivity assay (kDPRA), a modification of the DPRA (OECD TG 442C), allows derivation of rate constants of the depletion of the cysteine-containing model peptide upon reaction with the test item. Its reproducibility was demonstrated in an inter-laboratory study. Here, we present a database of rate constants, expressed as log kmax, for 180 chemicals to define the prediction threshold to identify strong sensitizers (classified as GHS 1A). A threshold of log kmax -2 offers a balanced accuracy of 85% for predicting GHS 1A sensitizers according to the local lymph node assay. The kDPRA is proposed as a stand-alone assay for identification of GHS 1A sensitizers among chemicals identified as sensitizers by other tests or defined approaches. It may also be used for the prediction of sensitizer potency on a continuous scale, ideally in combination with continuous parameters from other in vitro assays. We show how the rate constant could be combined with read-outs of other in vitro assays in a defined approach. A decision model based on log kmax alone has, however, a high predictivity and can be used as stand-alone model for identification of GHS 1A sensitizers among chemicals predicted as sensitizers.

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.

There has been significant progress in recent years in the development and application of alternative methods for assessing the skin sensitization potential of chemicals. The pathways involved in skin sensitization have been described in an OECD adverse outcome pathway (AOP). To date, a single non-animal test method is not sufficient to address this AOP so numerous approaches involving the use of 2 or more assays are being evaluated for their performance. The 2 out of 3 approach is a simple approach that has demonstrated very good sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy numbers for predicting the skin sensitization potential of chemicals. Chemicals with at least two positive results in tests addressing Key events 1-3 are predicted sensitizers, while chemicals with none or only one positive outcome are predicted non-sensitizers. In this report we have thoroughly reviewed the discordant results of 29 chemicals with 1 out of 3 positive results to understand better what led to the results observed and how this information might impact our hazard assessments of these chemicals. We initially categorized each chemical using a weight of evidence approach as positive, negative or indeterminate based on review of available human and animal data as well as what skin sensitization alerts were triggered using two versions of OECD Toolbox and DEREK Nexus. We determined that 4 of the 29 chemicals should be classified as indeterminate and not included in analysis of method performance based on insufficient, borderline and/or conflicting data to confidently categorized the chemicals as allergens or non-allergens. Of the 29 chemicals included in this analysis, 17 were classified as negative and would be correctly identified using a 2 out of 3 approach while 8 chemicals were classified as positive in vivo and would be false-negative with this approach. For some of these chemicals, the outcomes observed can be explained by in vitro borderline results (13 chemicals) or in some instances there is mechanistic understanding of why a chemical is positive or negative in a particular assay (9 chemicals). Thus, when comparing the performance of different defined approaches, one should attempt to only include chemicals which demonstrate clear evidence to be categorize as allergens or non-allergens. Finally, when interpreting the results obtained for an individual unknown chemical it is critical that the in vitro skin sensitization data is reviewed critically and there is a good understanding of the variance and applicability domain limitations for each assay being used.

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.

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.

While single non-animal methods have been adopted in OECD test guidelines, combinations of methods (so called defined approaches, DA) are not. Hardly any animal study can be replaced by a single non-animal method, rather DA are needed. The OECD published the Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) on skin sensitization in 2012 and is currently discussing the implementation of DA into a guideline. Obviously, it takes thorough considerations and evaluations to validate such DA. Currently we see four preconditions for a proper and expedient implementation of DA in a guideline: (i) The reference data should be selected to allow meaningful evaluations and must not replicate the limitations of the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) (ii) Methods and prediction models should be validated before they are used in an OECD-adopted DA, (iii) An OECD-adopted DA should follow the respective AOP and (iv) acknowledge regulatory needs and successful toxicological practice. These points still need to be considered in the current discussion at the OECD. A guideline for skin sensitization DA is setting the scene for regulatory acceptance of all new approaches (for any toxicological endpoint) in the future. In this commentary, we are expounding these preconditions to allow a scientifically valid and sustainable application of modern (no-animal) approaches in regulatory toxicology.

The selection of reference and proficiency chemicals is an important basis for method validation and proficiency evaluations. Reference chemicals are a set of test substances used by a method developer to evaluate the reliability and relevance of a new method, in comparison to reference data (usually to a validated reference method). Proficiency chemicals, as defined in OECD Guidance Document on Good In Vitro Method Practices, are defined post validation as a subset of the reference chemicals or other chemicals with sufficient supporting data that are used by naive laboratories to demonstrate technical competence with a validated test method. Proficiency chemicals should cover different physical states, several chemical classes within the applicability domain of the method and yield the full range of responses (in the validated reference method and in vivo), they shall be commercially available (at non-prohibitive costs) and have high quality reference data. If reference and subsequent proficiency chemicals are chosen without sufficient evidence for their inclusion, both test method evaluation and demonstration of technical proficiency can be hampered. In this report we present cases in which the selection of reference chemicals led to problems in the reproduction of the reference results and demonstration of technical proficiency: The variability of results was not always taken into account in selection of several reference substances of the LLNA (OECD TG 429). Based on the available reference data one proficiency chemical for the Corrositex skin corrosion test (OECD TG 435) should be replaced. Likewise, the expected in vitro result for one of the proficiency chemicals for the BCOP (OECD TG 437) was difficult to reproduce in several labs. Furthermore, it was not possible to obtain one of the proficiency chemicals for the Steroidogenesis Assay (OECD TG 456) at non-prohibitive costs at a reasonable purity. Based on these, we recommend changes of current proficiency chemicals lists with established OECD Test Guidelines and provide recommendations for developing future sets of reference chemicals.

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.

The local lymph node assay (LLNA) is a regulatory accepted test for the identification of skin sensitizingsubstances by measuring radioactive thymidine incorporation into the lymph node. However, there is evidence that LLNAis overestimating the sensitization potential of certain substance classes in particular those exerting skin irritation. Somereports describe the additional use of flow cytometry-based immunophenotyping to better discriminate irritants fromsensitizing irritants in LLNA. In the present study, the 22 performance standards plus 8 surfactants were assessed usingthe radioactive LLNA method. In addition,lymph node cells were immunophenotyped to evaluate the specificity of the lymphnode response using cell surface markers such as B220 or CD19, CD3, CD4, CD8, I-A κ and CD69 with the aim to allow a betterdiscrimination above all between irritants and sensitizers, but also non-irritating sensitizers and non-sensitizers. However,the markers assessed in this study do not sufficiently differentiate between irritants and irritant sensitizers and thereforedid not improve the predictive capacity of the LLNA. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher’s web-site.Keywords: LLNA; immunophenotyping; predicitivity; skin sensitization; mice

The applicability of rat precision-cut lung slices (PCLuS) in detecting nanomaterial (NM) toxicity to the respiratory tract was investigated evaluating sixteen OECD reference NMs (TiO2, ZnO, CeO2, SiO2, Ag, multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs)). Upon 24-hour test substance exposure, the PCLuS system was able to detect early events of NM toxicity: total protein, reduction in mitochondrial activity, caspase-3/-7 activation, glutathione depletion/increase, cytokine induction, and histopathological evaluation. Ion shedding NMS (ZnO and Ag) induced severe tissue destruction detected by the loss of total protein. Two anatase TiO2 NMs, CeO2 NMs, and two MWCNT caused significant (determined by trend analysis) cytotoxicity in the WST-1 assay. At non-cytotoxic concentrations, different TiO2 NMs and one MWCNT increased GSH levels, presumably a defense response to reactive oxygen species, and these substances further induced a variety of cytokines. One of the SiO2 NMs increased caspase-3/-7 activities at non-cytotoxic levels, and one rutile TiO2 only induced cytokines. Investigating these effects is, however, not sufficient to predict apical effects found in vivo. Reproducibility of test substance measurements was not fully satisfactory, especially in the GSH and cytokine assays. Effects were frequently observed in negative controls pointing to tissue slice vulnerability even though prepared and handled with utmost care. Comparisons of the effects observed in the PCLuS to in vivo effects reveal some concordances for the metal oxide NMs, but less so for the MWCNT. The highest effective dosages, however, exceeded those reported for rat short-term inhalation studies. To become applicable for NM testing, the PCLuS system requires test protocol optimization.

For ethical and regulatory reasons, in vitro tests for scoring potential toxicities of cosmetics are essential. A test strategy for investigating potential skin sensitization using two human keratinocytic and two human dendritic cell lines has been developed (Mehling et al. Arch Toxicol 86:1273–1295, 2012). Since prohaptens may be metabolically activated in the skin, information on xenobiotic metabolizing enzyme (XME) activities in these cell lines is of high interest. In this study, XME activity assays, monitoring metabolite or cofactor, showed the following: all three passages of keratinocytic (KeratinoSens® and LuSens) and dendritic (U937 und THP-1) cells displayed N-acetyltransferase 1 (NAT1) activities (about 6–60 nmol/min/mg S9-protein for acetylation of para-aminobenzoic acid). This is relevant since reactive species of many cosmetics are metabolically controlled by cutaneous NAT1. Esterase activities of about 1–4 nmol fluorescein diacetate/min/mg S9-protein were observed in all passages of investigated keratinocytic and about 1 nmol fluorescein diacetate/min/mg S9-protein in dendritic cell lines. This is also of practical relevance since many esters and amides are detoxified and others activated by cutaneous esterases. In both keratinocytic cell lines, activities of aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) were observed (5–17 nmol product/min/mg cytosolic protein). ALDH is relevant for the detoxication of reactive aldehydes. Activities of several other XME were below detection, namely the investigated cytochrome P450-dependent alkylresorufin O-dealkylases 7-ethylresorufin O-deethylase, 7-benzylresorufin O-debenzylase and 7-pentylresorufin O-depentylase (while NADPH cytochrome c reductase activities were much above the limit of quantification), the flavin-containing monooxygenase, the alcohol dehydrogenase as well as the UDP glucuronosyl transferase activities.

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.

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.

Skin corrosion or irritation refers to the production of irreversible or reversible damage to the skin following the application of a test substance, respectively. Traditionally, hazard assessments are conducted using the in vivo Draize skin test, but recently in vitro tests using reconstructed human epidermis (RhE) models have gained regulatory acceptance. In this study, skin corrosion (SCT) and irritation tests (SIT) using a RhE model were implemented to reduce the number of in vivo tests required by regulatory bodies. One hundred and thirty-four materials were tested from a wide range of substance classes included 46 agrochemical formulations. Results were assessed according to UN GHS, EU-CLP, ANVISA and US EPA classification schemes. There was high correlation between the two in vitro tests. Assessment of the SCT sensitivity was not possible due to the limited number of corrosives in the data set; SCT specificity and accuracy were 89% for all classification systems. Accuracy (63-76%) and sensitivity (53-67%) were low in the SIT. Specificity and concordance for agrochemical formulations alone in both the SCT and SIT were comparable to the values for the complete data set (SCT: 91% vs. 89% specificity, 91% vs. 89% accuracy and SIT: 64-88% vs. 70-85% specificity, 56-75% vs. 63-76% accuracy).

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.

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.

In a previous study, the predictive capacity of a modified local lymph node assay (LLNA) based on cell counts, the LNCC, was demonstrated to be closely similar to that of the original assay. In addition, a range of substances, including some technical/commercial materials and a range of agrochemical formulations (n = 180) have also been assessed in both methods in parallel. The results in the LNCC and LLNA were generally consistent, with 86% yielding an identical classification outcome. Discordant results were associated with borderline data and were evenly distributed between the two methods. Potency information derived from each method also demonstrated good consistency (n = 101), with 93% of predictions being close. Skin irritation was observed only infrequently and was most commonly associated with positive results; it was not associated with the discordant results. Where different vehicles were used with the same test material, the effect on sensitizing activity was modest, consistent with historical data. Analysis of positive control data indicated that the LNCC and LLNA displayed similar levels of biological variation. When taken in combination with the previously published results on LLNA Performance Standard chemicals, it is concluded that the LNCC provides a viable non-radioactive alternative to the LLNA for the assessment of substances, including potency predictions, as well as for the evaluation of preparations. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Allergic contact dermatitis is induced by repeated skin contact with an allergen. Assessment of the skin sensitizing potential of chemicals, agrochemicals, and especially cosmetic ingredients is currently performed with the use of animals. Animal welfare and EU legislation demand animal-free alternatives reflected in a testing and marketing ban for cosmetic ingredients beginning in 2013. The underlying mechanisms of induction and elicitation of skin sensitization are complex and a chemical needs to comply several properties being skin sensitizing. To account for the multitude of events in the induction of skin sensitization an in vitro test system will consist of a battery of various tests. Currently, we performed intralaboratory validations of four assays addressing three different events during induction of skin sensitization. (1) The Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) according to Gerberick and co-workers ( Gerberick et al., 2004 ) using synthetic peptides and HPLC analysis. (2) Two dendritic cell activation assays based on the dendritic cell like cell lines U-937 and THP-1 and flow cytometric detection of the maturation markers CD54 and/or CD86 ( Ashikaga et al., 2006 , Python et al., 2007 , Sakaguchi et al., 2006 ). (3) Antioxidant response element (ARE)-dependent gene activity in a HaCaT reporter gene cell line ( Emter et al., 2010 ). We present the results of our intralaboratory validation of these assays with 23 substances of known sensitizing potential. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the individual tests were obtained by comparison to human epidemiological data as well as to data from animal tests such as the local lymph node assay.

An integral part of hazard and safety assessments is the estimation of a chemical’s potential to cause skin sensitization. Currently, only animal tests (OECD 406 and 429) are accepted in a regulatory context. Nonanimal test methods are being developed and formally validated. In order to gain more insight into the responses induced by eight exemplary surfactants, a battery of in vivo and in vitro tests were conducted using the same batch of chemicals. In general, the surfactants were negative in the GPMT, KeratinoSens and hCLAT assays and none formed covalent adducts with test peptides. In contrast, all but one was positive in the LLNA. Most were rated as being irritants by the EpiSkin assay with the additional endpoint, IL1-alpha. The weight of evidence based on this comprehensive testing indicates that, with one exception, they are non-sensitizing skin irritants, confirming that the LLNA tends to overestimate the sensitization potential of surfactants. As results obtained from LLNAs are considered as the gold standard for the development of new nonanimal alternative test methods, results such as these highlight the necessity to carefully evaluate the applicability domains of test methods in order to develop reliable nonanimal alternative testing strategies for sensitization testing.

Humans are exposed to a combination of various substances such as cosmetic ingredients, drugs, biocides, pesticides and natural-occurring substances in food. The combined toxicological effects of two or more substances can simply be additive on the basis of response-addition, or it can be greater (synergistic) or smaller (antagonistic) than this. The need to assess combined effects of compounds with endocrine activity is currently discussed for regulatory risk assessment. We have used a well described yeast based androgen receptor transactivation assay YAS to assess the combinatorial effects of vinclozolin and flutamide; both mediating antiandrogenicity via the androgen receptor. Both vinclozolin and flutamide were antiandrogens of similar potency in the YAS assay. In the concentration range tested the two antiandrogens vinclozolin and flutamide did not act synergistically. Concentration additivity was observed in the linear, non-receptor-saturated concentration range. At high concentrations of one of the two substances tested the contribution of the second at lower concentration levels was less than additive. The combined response of both compounds at high concentration levels was also less than additive (saturation effect). At concentration levels which did not elicit a response of the individual compounds, the combination of these compounds also did not elicit a response.

Acute oral toxicity testing is still required for the classification and labelling of chemicals, agrochemicals and related formulations. There have been increasing efforts over the last two decades to reduce the number of animals needed for this testing, according to the Three Rs concept. To evaluate the utility of an in vitro cytotoxicity test in our routine testing for acute oral toxicity, we have implemented in our laboratory the neutral red uptake (NRU) method, with Balb/c 3T3 fibroblasts after a 48-hour exposure, which was recommended in ICCVAM Report 07-4519, 2006. Initially, we tested 16 substances that had existing in vivo and in vitro data available, to prove our technical proficiency with the in vitro test. Then, testing was performed with 187 test substances, including a broad variety of chemicals, agrochemicals and formulations. The starting dose for acute oral systemic toxicity assays in rats (LD50) was estimated by using the prediction model presented in the ICCVAM validation study, and subsequently compared to the results obtained by in vivo testing performed according to, or similar to, OECD Test Guideline 423. Comparison of all of the 203 predicted LD50 values that were deduced from the in vitro IC50 values, with the in vivo results from oral toxicity studies in rats, resulted in a low overall concordance of 35%. The in vitro cytotoxicity assay achieved a good concordance of 74%, only for the weakly toxic substances (EU-GHS Cat. 4). However, it must be noted that 71% of the substances tested (i.e. 145/203) were classified as being weakly toxic in vitro. We further analysed the utility of the in vitro test for predicting the starting dose for an in vivo study, and the potential reduction in animal usage that this would engender. In this regard, the prediction by the cytotoxicity test was useful for 59% of the substances. However, the use of a standard starting dose of 300mg/kg bw by default (without previous cytotoxicity testing) would have been almost as useful (50%). In contrast, the prediction by an experienced toxicologist was correct for 95% of the substances. However, this was only performed for 40% of the substances, mainly those of no to low toxicity. Calculating the theoretical animal numbers needed in several scenarios supported these results. The additional analysis, considering some physicochemical data (solubility, molecular weight, log POW), substance class and mode of action, revealed no specific applicability domains. In summary, the use of the 3T3 NRU cytotoxicity data alone did not sufficiently contribute to refinement and reduction in the acute oral toxicity testing of the substance portfolio tested routinely in our laboratory.

The local lymph node assay (LLNA) is the preferred test for identification of skin-sensitizing substances by measuring radioactive thymidine incorporation into the lymph node. To facilitate acceptance of nonradioactive variants, validation authorities have published harmonized minimum performance standards (PS) that the alternative endpoint assay must meet. In the present work, these standards were applied to a variant of the LLNA based on lymph node cell counts (LNCC) run in parallel as a control with the standard LLNA with radioactivity measurements, with threshold concentrations (EC3) being determined for the sensitizers. Of the 22 PS chemicals tested in this study, 21 yielded the same results from standard radioactivity and cell count measurements; only 2-mercaptobenzothiazole was positive by LLNA but negative by LNCC. Of the 16 PS positives, 15 were positive by LLNA and 14 by LNCC; methylmethacrylate was not identified as sensitizer by either of the measurements. Two of the six PS negatives tested negative in our study by both LLNA and LNCC. Of the four PS negatives which were positive in our study, chlorobenzene and methyl salicylate were tested at higher concentrations than the published PS, whereas the corresponding concentrations resulted in consistent negative results. Methylmethacrylate and nickel chloride tested positive within the concentration range used for the published PS. The results indicate cell counts and radioactive measurements are in good accordance within the same LLNA using the 22 PS test substances. Comparisons with the published PS results may, however, require balanced analysis rather than a simple checklist approach.

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.

Besides other modes of action, endocrine disruptors may interact with hormone receptors thereby modifying the physiological function of endogenous hormones. In the present study, we report the results obtained with yeast based assays to detect the (anti-)estrogenic potential (YES) and the (anti-)androgenic potential (YAS) of 105 substances. The results show very high reproducibility and good concordance with literature data of in vivo and/or in vitro studies: the overall true positive rate, true negative rate and accuracy of the assays were 78%, 95%, and 87% (estrogen agonism), and 70%, 97%, and 90% (estrogen antagonism), 88%, 96%, and 95% (androgen agonism) and 81%, 88%, and 85% (androgen antagonism). Furthermore, the performance of the YES assay has been compared to the HeLa based transcriptional activation assay using 20 compounds. The overall true positive rate, true negative rate, and accuracy obtained for the 20 compounds were 100%, 88%, and 95% (mammalian cell based HeLa assay) and 92%, 86%, and 90% (yeast based YES assay). Taken together, the YES and YAS are robust systems, easy to handle and satisfying the requirements for screening systems that can be applied in programs including the US Environmental Protection Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.

Toxicology in vitro 32, 347-361 (2016). doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2016.01.006, Published by Elsevier Science, Amsterdam [u.a.]

Background Assessment of eye irritation hazard has long been a core requirement in any chemical legislation. Nevertheless, publications focussing on the eye damaging potential of nanomaterials are scarce. Traditionally, eye irritation testing was performed using rabbits. The OECD Test Guideline 437 Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) test method allows determining severely irritating substances without animals, and the recently adopted OECD Test Guideline 492 Reconstructed human cornea-like epithelium test method allows identifying chemicals that neither induce eye irritation nor serious eye damage. For substances applicable to these tests, huge progress has been made in replacing animal testing. Methods The in vitro eye irritation potential of 20 nanosized and 3 non-nanosized materials was investigated in a 2-tier EpiOcular™ Eye Irritation Test (EpiOcular™-EIT) and BCOP testing strategy including histopathology of the bovine corneas. Furthermore, applicability of the testing strategy for nanomaterials was assessed. Test materials encompassed OECD representative nanomaterials (metals (Ag), metal oxides (ZnO, TiO2, CeO2), amorphous SiO2 and MWCNTs), three organic pigments, quartz, and talc. Results None of the dry-powder nanomaterials elicited eye irritation in either the EpiOcular™-EIT or the BCOP assay. Likewise, an amorphous SiO2 nanomaterial that was supplied as suspension was tested negative in both assays. By contrast, in the EpiOcular™-EIT, the silver nanomaterial that was supplied as dispersion was tested positive, whereas its surfactant-containing dispersant was borderline to negative. In the BCOP assay, the silver nanomaterial elicited highly variable results and dark-brown patches remained on the corneal surface, whereas the results for its dispersant alone were borderline to positive, which was assessed as inconclusive due to high inter-assay variability. Conclusion The present study points to the low eye irritation potential of a spectrum of nanomaterials, which is consistent with available in vivo data for the same test materials or for nanosized or bulk materials of the same composition. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12989-016-0128-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sensitization, the prerequisite event in the development of allergic contact dermatitis, is a key parameter in both hazard and risk assessments. The pathways involved have recently been formally described in the OECD adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization. One single non-animal test method will not be sufficient to fully address this AOP and in many cases the use of a battery of tests will be necessary. A number of methods are now fully developed and validated. In order to facilitate acceptance of these methods by both the regulatory and scientific communities, results of the single test methods (DPRA, KeratinoSens™, LuSens, h-CLAT, (m)MUSST) as well for a the simple ‘2 out of 3’ ITS for 213 substances have been compiled and qualitatively compared to both animal and human data. The dataset was also used to define different mechanistic domains by probable protein-binding mechanisms. In general, the non-animal test methods exhibited good predictivities when compared to local lymph node assay (LLNA) data and even better predictivities when compared to human data. The ‘2 out of 3’ prediction model achieved accuracies of 90% or 79% when compared to human or LLNA data, respectively and thereby even slightly exceeded that of the LLNA.

The local lymph node assay (LLNA) is a regulatory accepted test for the identification of skin sensitizing substances by measuring radioactive thymidine incorporation into the lymph node. However, there is evidence that LLNA is overestimating the sensitization potential of certain substance classes in particular those exerting skin irritation. Some reports describe the additional use of flow cytometry-based immunophenotyping to better discriminate irritants from sensitizing irritants in LLNA. In the present study, the 22 performance standards plus 8 surfactants were assessed using the radioactive LLNA method. In addition, lymph node cells were immunophenotyped to evaluate the specificity of the lymph node response using cell surface markers such as B220 or CD19, CD3, CD4, CD8, I-A(κ) and CD69 with the aim to allow a better discrimination above all between irritants and sensitizers, but also non-irritating sensitizers and non-sensitizers. However, the markers assessed in this study do not sufficiently differentiate between irritants and irritant sensitizers and therefore did not improve the predictive capacity of the LLNA.