The inter-laboratory validation study of EpiSensA for predicting skin sensitization potential

The Epidermal Sensitization Assay (EpiSensA) is a reconstructed human epidermis (RhE)-based gene expression assay for predicting the skin sensitization potential of chemicals. Since the RhE model is covered by a stratified stratum corneum, various kinds of test chemicals, including lipophilic ones and pre-/pro-haptens, can be tested with a route of exposure akin to an in vivo assay and human exposure. This article presents the results of a formally managed validation study of the EpiSensA that was carried out by three participating laboratories. The purpose of this validation study was to assess transferability of the EpiSensA to new laboratories along with its within- (WLR) and between-laboratory reproducibility (BLR). The validation study was organized into two independent stages. As demonstrated during the first stage, where three sensitizers and one non-sensitizer were correctly predicted by all participating laboratories, the EpiSensA was successfully transferred to all three participating laboratories. For Phase I of the second stage, each participating laboratory performed three experiments with an identical set of 15 coded test chemicals resulting in WLR of 93.3%, 93.3%, and 86.7%, respectively. Furthermore, when the results from the 15 test chemicals were combined with those of the additional 12 chemicals tested in Phase II of the second stage, the BLR for 27 test chemicals was 88.9%. Moreover, the predictive capacity among the three laboratories showed 92.6% sensitivity, 63.0% specificity, 82.7% accuracy, and 77.8% balanced accuracy based on murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) results. Overall, this validation study concluded that EpiSensA is easily transferable and sufficiently robust for assessing the skin sensitization potential of chemicals.

Proof of concept testing of a positive reference material for in vivo and in vitro sensitization testing of medical devices

In vivo skin sensitization tests are required to evaluate the biological safety of medical devices in contact with living organisms to provide safe medical care to patients. Negative and positive reference materials have been developed for biological tests of cytotoxicity, implantation, hemolysis, and in vitro skin irritation. However, skin sensitization tests are lacking. In this study, polyurethane sheets containing 1 wt/wt % 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB-PU) were developed and evaluated as a positive reference material for skin sensitization tests. DNCB-PU sheet extracts prepared with sesame oil elicited positive sensitization responses for in vivo sensitization potential in the guinea pig maximization test and the local lymph node assay. Furthermore, DNCB-PU sheet extracts prepared with water and acetonitrile, 10% fetal bovine serum-containing medium, or sesame oil elicited positive sensitization responses as alternatives to animal testing based on the amino acid derivative reactivity assay, human cell line activation test, and epidermal sensitization assay, respectively. These data suggest that the DNCB-PU sheet is an effective extractable positive reference material for in vivo and in vitro skin sensitization testing in medical devices. The formulation of this reference material will lead to the development of safer medical devices that contribute to patient safety.

Assessment of the performance of the Ames MPF™ assay: A multicenter collaborative study with six coded chemicals

The Ames MPF™ is a miniaturized, microplate fluctuation format of the Ames test. It is a standardized, commercially available product which can be used to assess mutagenicity in Salmonella and E. coli strains in 384-well plates using a color change-based readout. Several peer-reviewed comparisons of the Ames MPF™ to the Ames test in Petri dishes confirmed its suitability to evaluate the mutagenic potential of a variety of test items. An international multicenter study involving seven laboratories tested six coded chemicals with this assay using five bacterial strains, as recommended by the OECD test guideline 471. The data generated by the participating laboratories was in excellent agreement (93%), and the similarity of their dose response curves, as analyzed with sophisticated statistical approaches further confirmed the suitability of the Ames MPF™ assay as an alternative to the Ames test on agar plates, but with advantages with respect to significantly reduced amount of test substance and S9 requirements, speed, hands-on time and, potentially automation.

Alternative Methods for Skin-Sensitization Assessment

Skin sensitization is a term used to refer to the regulatory hazard known as allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in humans or contact hypersensitivity in rodents, an important health endpoint considered in chemical hazard and risk assessments. Information on skin sensitization potential is required in various regulatory frameworks, such as the Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH). The identification of skin-sensitizing chemicals previously required the use of animal testing, which is now being replaced by alternative methods. Alternative methods in the field of skin sensitization are based on the measurement or prediction of key events (KE), i.e., (i) the molecular triggering event, i.e., the covalent binding of electrophilic substances to nucleophilic centers in skin proteins; (ii) the activation of keratinocytes; (iii) the activation of dendritic cells; (iv) the proliferation of T cells. This review article focuses on the current state of knowledge regarding the methods corresponding to each of the key events in skin sensitization and considers the latest trends in the development and modification of these methods.

How to resolve inconclusive predictions from defined approaches for skin sensitisation in OECD Guideline No. 497

In June 2021 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development published Guideline No. 497 on Defined Approaches for Skin Sensitisation (DASS GL). There are two DAs published, known as the 2o3 and the ITS. The 2o3 uses two concordant results from either the DPRA, KeratinoSens™, or the h-CLAT assays to predict hazard (sensitiser/non-sensitiser). The ITS applies a score to results from the DPRA, the h-CLAT and an in silico model to predict United Nations Globally Harmonized System (GHS) sub-categories (1A/1B/Not Classified). The ITS can use Derek Nexus as the in silico model (known as ITSv1) or use OECD QSAR Toolbox (known as ITSv2). As limitations of the individual in chemico/in vitro assays and in silico predictions are carried through to the DAs, inconclusive predictions are possible for chemicals with results in the borderline range, and chemicals with out of domain results. However, these inconclusive predictions can be resolved by applying a weight of evidence approach. Herein, four case studies are presented, each 'inconclusive' for skin sensitisation potential according to both DAs. A weight of evidence approach was applied to each using a robust scientific approach to provide a conclusive prediction, where possible, based on several additional, non-animal lines of evidence.

Amino acid derivative reactivity assay-organic solvent reaction system: A novel alternative test for skin sensitization capable of assessing highly hydrophobic substances

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) is an in chemico alternative to animal testing that focuses on protein binding. The ADRA is a skin sensitization test that solves problems associated with the direct peptide reactivity assay. However, when utilizing the ADRA to evaluate highly hydrophobic substances with octanol/water partition coefficients (logKow) of >6, the test substances may not dissolve in the reaction solution, which can prevent the accurate assessment of skin sensitization. Therefore, we developed the ADRA-organic solvent (ADRA-OS) reaction system, which is a novel skin sensitization test that enables the assessment of highly hydrophobic substances with a logKow of >6. We discovered that the organic solvent ratio, the triethylamine concentration, and the ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dihydrate concentration participate in reactions with the nucleophile N-(2-(1-naphthyl)acetyl)-l-cysteine (NAC) and sensitizers that are used in ADRA and in stabilizing NAC. Thus, we determined the optimal reaction composition of the ADRA-OS according to L₉ (3³ ) orthogonal array experiments. Using this test, we assessed 14 types of highly hydrophobic substances. When we compared the results with ADRA, we found that ADRA-OS reaction system has high solubility for highly hydrophobic substances and that it has a high predictive capacity (sensitivity: 63%, specificity: 100%, accuracy: 79%). The implication of the results is that the novel ADRA-OS reaction system should provide a useful method for assessing the skin sensitization of highly hydrophobic substances with a logKow of >6.