Cause of and countermeasures for oxidation of the cysteine-derived reagent used in the amino acid derivative reactivity assay

The dimer effect: A refinement approach towards skin sensitization assessment in-chemico using Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay

Skin sensitization is a key endpoint for safety assessment, especially for cosmetics and personal care products. The adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization and the chemical and biological events driving the induction of human skin sensitization are now well understood. Several non-animal test methods have been developed to predict sensitizer potential by measuring the impact of chemical sensitizers on these key events. In this work, we have focused on Key Event 1 (the molecular initiating step), which is based on formation of a covalent adduct between skin sensitizers and endogenous proteins and/or peptides in the skin. There exists three in-chemico assays approved by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development-(1) Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA), (2) Amino Acid Derivative Reactivity Assay (ADRA), and (3) Kinetic Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (kDPRA) to quantify peptide/amino acid derivative depletion after incubation with test chemicals. However, overestimated depletion of the cysteine-based peptide/amino acid derivatives is known in such assays because of the dimerization of the thiol group. In this present work, we report the synthesis and structural confirmation of the dimer of N-(2-[1-naphthyl]acetyl)-L-cysteine (NAC) from the ADRA assay to allow simultaneous determination of (a) peptide depletion by quantifying NAC monomer and (b) peptide dimerization by quantifying NAC dimer thereby eliminating the overestimation. We present a case study with three chemicals to demonstrate the importance of this approach. Thus, this simultaneous assay gives a more informed view of the peptide reactivity of chemicals to better identify skin sensitizers.

Determination and analysis of patulin in apples, hawthorns, and their products by high-performance liquid chromatography

This study aimed to establish a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method to investigate the residues of patulin in apples, hawthorns, and their products. A total of 400 samples were collected from online shopping plats and supermarkets in China, including apples (n = 50), hawthorns (n = 50), and their products (apple juice, apple puree, apple jam, hawthorn juice, hawthorn chips, and hawthorn rolls, n = 300). In this experiment, this method had good linearity and a recovery of 82.3-94.4% for patulin. The limit of detection (LOD) was 0.2 µg/kg for liquid samples, while it was 0.3 µg/kg for solid and semi-fluid samples. The frequencies of patulin were 79.8% in 400 samples, and the patulin concentration is from 0.6 to 126.0 µg/kg. Two samples (0.5%) for patulin exceeded the regulatory limit (50 µg/kg) in 400 samples. The frequencies of patulin in kinds of samples were 32.0-98.0% (p < 0.05), and the percentage of samples exceeding the limit was not more than 2.0%. The frequencies of patulin in domestic samples were 83.0%, while they were 57.7% in imported samples. Two domestic samples (0.6%) contained patulin above the regulatory limit, while none of the imported samples exceeded the limit. Among the online and offline samples, the frequencies of patulin were 76.4 and 82.1%. Two online samples (1.0%) for patulin exceeded the regulatory limit, whereas none of the offline samples exceeded the limit. These results showed it is important to monitor regularly the content of patulin in apples, hawthorns, and their products to ensure consumer food safety.

The skin sensitization adverse outcome pathway: exploring the role of mechanistic understanding for higher tier risk assessment

For over a decade, the skin sensitization Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) has served as a useful framework for development of novel in chemico and in vitro assays for use in skin sensitization hazard and risk assessment. Since its establishment, the AOP framework further fueled the existing efforts in new assay development and stimulated a plethora of activities with particular focus on validation, reproducibility and interpretation of individual assays and combination of assay outputs for use in hazard/risk assessment. In parallel, research efforts have also accelerated in pace, providing new molecular and dynamic insight into key events leading to sensitization. In light of novel hypotheses emerging from over a decade of focused research effort, mechanistic evidence relating to the key events in the skin sensitization AOP may complement the tools currently used in risk assessment. We reviewed the recent advances unraveling the complexity of molecular events in sensitization and signpost the most promising avenues for further exploration and development of useful assays.

Assessment of commercial polymers with and without reactive groups using amino acid derivative reactivity assay based on both molar concentration approach and gravimetric approach

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA), an alternative method for testing skin sensitization, has been established based on the molar concentration approach. However, the additional development of gravimetric concentration and fluorescence detection methods has expanded its range of application to mixtures, which cannot be evaluated using the conventional testing method, the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA). Although polymers are generally treated as mixtures, there have been no reports of actual polymer evaluations using alternative methods owing to their insolubility. Therefore, in this study, we evaluated skin sensitization potential of polymers, which is difficult to predict, using ADRA. As polymers have molecular weights ranging from several thousand to more than several tens of thousand Daltons, they are unlikely to cause skin sensitization due to their extremely low penetration into the skin, according to the 500-Da rule. However, if highly reactive functional groups remain at the ends or side chains of polymers, relatively low-molecular-weight polymer components may penetrate the skin to cause sensitization. Polymers can be roughly classified into three major types based on the features of their constituent monomers; we investigated the sensitization capacity of each type of polymer. Polymers with alert sensitization structures at their ends were classified as skin sensitizers, whereas those with no residual reactive groups were classified as nonsensitizers. Although polymers with a glycidyl group need to be evaluated carefully, we concluded that ADRA (0.5 mg/ml) is generally sufficient for polymer hazard assessment.

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.

Theoretical Validation of In Chemico Skin Sensitization Assay "ADRA" Using the Products Formed by Nucleophilic Reagents and Chemicals

Amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) is an in chemico assay for assessing the skin sensitization potential of chemicals by evaluating the reactivity of nucleophilic reagents that mimic skin proteins. N-(2-(1-Naphthyl)acetyl)-l-cysteine (NAC) and α-N-(2-(1-naphthyl)acetyl)-l-lysine (NAL), used as nucleophilic reagents, are small-molecule derivatives of two different amino acids, each with a naphthalene ring attached. The rate of decrease in the amount of NAC or NAL in the reaction solution is evaluated in this assay as an indicator of the test substance's skin sensitization ability. However, the products formed between the nucleophilic reagent and the test substance, which play an important role in vivo, are not directly identified. Therefore, six highly reactive chemicals, including the proficiency substances listed in the OECD Test Guidelines─squaric acid diethyl ester, 2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one (MI), p-benzoquinone, palmitoyl chloride, diphenylcyclopropenone (DPCP), and imidazolidinyl urea (IU)─were used to determine each formed product. Samples were prepared according to the standard ADRA method, and the formed products were predicted on the basis of the reaction mechanism. Excluding DPCP, the estimated structures were validated using mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry on the synthesized samples. In this manner, the products of each nucleophile were confirmed for all examined test substances. The estimated structure products were obtained through a series of reactions initiated by the nucleophilic attack of NAC's thiol group or NAL's amino group on the test substance's electron-deficient carbonyl carbon. However, contrary to expectations, disulfide-linked-type ring-opened products were detected in the case of MI, and products with free formaldehyde in solution were detected in the case of IU. In summary, all skin sensitizers tested herein reacted with NAC and/or NAL to give products. This supports the theoretical validity of ADRA, which provides an indirect evaluation of the formed products based on a decrease in nucleophilic reagents.

Causes and countermeasure for blank absorbance increase in the ROS assay

A reactive oxygen species (ROS) assay is an in chemico photoreactivity test listed in ICH S10 guideline and OECD Test Guideline No. 495. We currently utilize the ROS assay to assess the photosafety of cosmetic ingredients. We have recently confronted a problem that there was an absorbance increase of blank assessing superoxide anion generation after irradiation, whereas this did not occur in the negative control (sulisobenzone), leading to a dissatisfaction of the acceptance criteria. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the causes and find countermeasures. No significant effects of impurities and manufacturer differences of sodium phosphate and DMSO on blank absorbance increases were observed. In contrast, when Cu²⁺ was added to the buffer, the increase of blank absorbance after irradiation did not occur. We then confirmed the dose-response relationship and found that adding 0.1 μM of Cu²⁺ (corresponding to 6 ppb of Cu²⁺) was sufficient in suppressing the blank absorbance increase, suggesting the need of Cu²⁺ supplementation to the buffer. Finally, we confirmed that the ROS assay using the buffer supplemented with 0.1 μM of Cu²⁺ obtained stable test results by using 17 proficiency chemicals listed in TG 495. Our results suggest that the modified ROS assay protocol would be useful for obtaining stable test results.

Within- and between-laboratory reproducibility and predictive capacity of amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) using a 0.5 mg/mL test chemical solution: Results of the study for reproducibility confirmation implemented in five participating laboratories

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) is an in chemico alternative assay for skin sensitization listed in OECD test guideline 442C. ADRA evaluates the reactivity of sensitizers to proteins, which is key event 1 in the skin sensitization adverse outcome pathway. Although the current key event 1 evaluation method is a simple assay that evaluates nucleophile and test chemical reactivity, mixtures of unknown molecular weights cannot be evaluated because a constant molar ratio between the nucleophile and test chemical is necessary. In addition, because the nucleophile is quantified by HPLC, the frequency of co-eluting the test chemical and nucleophile increases when measuring multi-component mixtures. To solve these issues, test conditions have been developed using a 0.5 mg/mL test chemical solution and fluorescence-based detection. Since the practicality of these methods has not been substantiated, a validation test to confirm reproducibility was conducted in this study. The 10 proficiency substances listed in the ADRA guidelines were tested three times at five different laboratories. The results of both within- and between-laboratory reproducibility were 100%, and the results of ultraviolet- and fluorescence-based measurements were also consistent. In addition to the proficiency substances, a new positive control, squaric acid diethyl ester, was tested three times at the five laboratories. The results showed high reproducibility with N-(2-(1-naphthyl)acetyl)-l-cysteine depletion of 37%-52% and α-N-(2-(1-naphthyl)acetyl)-l-lysine depletion of 99%-100%. Thus, high reproducibility was confirmed in both evaluations of the 0.5 mg/mL test chemical and the fluorescence-based measurements, validating the practicability of these methods.

Applicability of ADRA (4 mM) for the prediction of skin sensitization by combining multiple alternative methods to evaluate key events

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) is an alternative method for evaluating key event 1 (KE-1) in the skin sensitization mechanism included in OECD TG442C. Recently, we found that ADRA with a 4-mM test chemical solution had a higher accuracy than the original ADRA (1 mM). However, ADRA (4 mM) has yet to be evaluated using Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA), a combination of alternative methods for evaluating Key-event. In this study, the sensitization potency of three Defined Approach (DA) using ADRA (4 mM) as KE-1 was predicted and compared with those of two additional ADRAs or DPRA: (i) "2 out of 3" approach, (ii) "3 out of 3" approach,, and (iii) ITS. In the hazard identification of chemical sensitizers, the accuracy of human data and LLNA remained almost unchanged among the three approaches evaluated. Potency classifications for sensitization were predicted with the LLNA and human datasets using ITS. The potency classifications for the sensitization potency prediction accuracy of LLNA data using any alternative method were almost unchanged, at approximately 70%, and those with ITS were not significantly different. When ITS was performed using DPRA, the prediction accuracy was approximately 73% for human data, which was similar to that of the LLNA data; however, the accuracy tended to increase for all ADRA methods. In particular, when ITS was performed using ADRA (4 mM), the prediction accuracy was approximately 78%, which proved to be a practical level.

The within- and between-laboratories reproducibility and predictive capacity of Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay using 4 mM test chemical solution: Results of ring study implemented at five participating laboratories

Amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) for skin sensitization was adopted as an alternative method in the 2019 OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals (OECD TG 442C). The molar ratio of the nucleophilic reagent to the test chemicals in the reaction solution was set to 1:50. Imamura et al. reported that changing this molar ratio from 1:50 to 1:200 reduced in false negatives and improved prediction accuracy. Hence, a ring study using ADRA with 4 mM of a test chemical solution (ADRA, 4 mM) was conducted at five different laboratories to verify within- and between-laboratory reproducibilities (WLR and BLR, respectively). In this study, we investigated the WLR and BLR using 14 test chemicals grouped into three classes: (1) eight proficiency substances, (2) four test chemicals that showed false negatives in the ADRA with 1 mM test chemical solution (ADRA, 1 mM), but correctly positive in ADRA (4 mM), and (3) current positive control (phenylacetaldehyde) and a new additional positive control (squaric acid diethyl ester). The results showed 100% reproducibility and 100% accuracy for skin sensitization. Hence, it is clear that the ADRA (4 mM) is an excellent test method in contrast to the currently used ADRA (1 mM). We plan to resubmit the ADRA (4 mM) test method to the OECD Test Guideline Group in the near future so that OECD TG 442C could be revised for the convenience and benefit of many ADRA users.

Cause Clarification of Cysteine Oxidation by Active Species Generated during the Oxidation Process of Cinnamaldehyde and Impact on an In Chemico Alternative Method for Skin Sensitization Using a Nucleophilic Reagent Containing Cysteine

Aldehydes comprise a major portion of skin sensitizers because they can react with both cysteine and lysine. Moreover, cinnamaldehyde (CA) is a typical moderate sensitizer and is often used in an alternative test method for skin sensitization. The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) is an in chemico test method that evaluates the reactivity of cysteine derivatives (N-(2-(1-naphthyl)acetyl)-l-cysteine, NAC) and lysine derivatives with the test chemicals and uses CA as a proficiency substance. We found that NAC depletion for CA was only 10-20% when CA was used directly from the reagent bottle, although it increased to almost 100% when stored after being aliquoted from the reagent bottle. It was also found that this was due to the air oxidation of NAC itself rather than the reaction of NAC with CA, indicating that this result simply shows an increase in apparent reactivity. Aldehydes are known to produce active species, such as radicals, during air oxidation. Therefore, we investigated whether radicals were generated under storage conditions using the radical scavenger OH-TEMPO. LC/MS/MS analysis revealed that CA and OH-TEMPO complexes were produced during the air oxidation of CA. In the results of five aldehydes, similar to CA, active species were not generated as significantly as CA. Collectively, during the evaluation of the aldehydes, it can be seen that careful measures need to be taken to prevent the aldehydes from oxidizing during storage, indicating that assessment without preventing air oxidation carries an increased risk of overestimation compared with the intrinsic skin sensitization potency.

In silico Prediction of Skin Sensitization: Quo vadis?

Skin direct contact with chemical or physical substances is predisposed to allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), producing various allergic reactions, namely rash, blister, or itchy, in the contacted skin area. ACD can be triggered by various extremely complicated adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) remains to be causal for biosafety warrant. As such, commercial products such as ointments or cosmetics can fulfill the topically safe requirements in animal and non-animal models including allergy. Europe, nevertheless, has banned animal tests for the safety evaluations of cosmetic ingredients since 2013, followed by other countries. A variety of non-animal in vitro tests addressing different key events of the AOP, the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), KeratinoSens™, LuSens and human cell line activation test h-CLAT and U-SENS™ have been developed and were adopted in OECD test guideline to identify the skin sensitizers. Other methods, such as the SENS-IS are not yet fully validated and regulatorily accepted. A broad spectrum of in silico models, alternatively, to predict skin sensitization have emerged based on various animal and non-animal data using assorted modeling schemes. In this article, we extensively summarize a number of skin sensitization predictive models that can be used in the biopharmaceutics and cosmeceuticals industries as well as their future perspectives, and the underlined challenges are also discussed.

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.

Reactivity-directed analysis - a novel approach for the identification of toxic organic electrophiles in drinking water

Drinking water consumption results in exposure to complex mixtures of organic chemicals, including natural and anthropogenic chemicals and compounds formed during drinking water treatment such as disinfection by-products. The complexity of drinking water contaminant mixtures has hindered efforts to assess associated health impacts. Existing approaches focus primarily on individual chemicals and/or the evaluation of mixtures, without providing information about the chemicals causing the toxic effect. Thus, there is a need for the development of novel strategies to evaluate chemical mixtures and provide insights into the species responsible for the observed toxic effects. This critical review introduces the application of a novel approach called Reactivity-Directed Analysis (RDA) to assess and identify organic electrophiles, the largest group of known environmental toxicants. In contrast to existing in vivo and in vitro approaches, RDA utilizes in chemico methodologies that investigate the reaction of organic electrophiles with nucleophilic biomolecules, including proteins and DNA. This review summarizes the existing knowledge about the presence of electrophiles in drinking water, with a particular focus on their formation in oxidative treatment systems with ozone, advanced oxidation processes, and UV light, as well as disinfectants such as chlorine, chloramines and chlorine dioxide. This summary is followed by an overview of existing RDA approaches and their application for the assessment of aqueous environmental matrices, with an emphasis on drinking water. RDA can be applied beyond drinking water, however, to evaluate source waters and wastewater for human and environmental health risks. Finally, future research demands for the detection and identification of electrophiles in drinking water via RDA are outlined.

Improving predictive capacity of the Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay test method for skin sensitization potential with an optimal molar concentration of test chemical solution

The Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay (ADRA) is a convenient and effective in chemico test method for assessing covalent binding of test chemicals with protein-derived nucleophilic reagents as a means of predicting skin sensitization potential. Although the original molar-concentration approach to ADRA testing was not suitable for testing multiconstituent substances of an unknown composition, a weight-concentration approach that is suitable for such substances was developed, which also led to the realization that test chemical solutions prepared to molar concentrations higher than the original 1 mM would reduce false negative results as well as enhance predictive capacity. The present study determined an optimal molar-concentration that achieves even higher predictive capacity than the original ADRA. Eight chemicals that were false negatives when tested with 1 mM test chemical solutions were retested with test chemical solutions between 2 and 5 mM, which showed 4 mM to be the optimal molar-concentration for ADRA testing. When 82 chemicals used in the original development were retested with 4 mM test chemical solutions, false negative results were reduced by four. When an additional 85 chemicals used to evaluate the weight-concentration approach to ADRA were retested, the results essentially replicated those obtained with 0.5 mg/ml test chemical solutions and gave 10 fewer false negatives than original ADRA with 1 mM solutions. A comparison of these results for 136 chemicals showed that ADRA testing with 4 mM solutions achieved a four percentage point improvement in accuracy over original ADRA and a two percentage point improvement over DPRA testing.

Synthesis of Peptide-Immobilized Magnetic Beads, and Peptide Reactivity Assay for Assessing Skin Sensitization Utilizing Chromophore

DPRA (direct peptide reactivity assay) and ADRA (amino acid derivative reactivity assay), which are based on the biological events of skin sensitization, were developed as alternatives to the controversial animal experiments. These assays are described in the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) guideline, Test No. 442C. Although these assays have been endorsed by the industries and internationally accepted as promising and effective tests for in vitro skin sensitization, they suffer from several drawbacks, such as incompatibility with hydrophobic chemicals and complicated sample processing. Here, we demonstrated a chromophore-based solid phase peptide reaction assay in vitro using peptides immobilized on magnetic beads (C-SPRA-MB). We successfully synthesized lysine (Lys) and cysteine (Cys) immobilized on magnetic microbeads. However, Cys immobilized magnetic microbeads showed gradual decomposition of the magnetic beads due to SH oxidation. Using Lys immobilized magnetic microbeads, we demonstrated the capacity of C-SPRA-MB to predict skin sensitization by measuring free amino groups of the Lys after reaction with test chemicals. First, the free amines on the microbeads were reacted with bromophenol blue (BB). Then, by treatment with a saturated solution of Lys, the bound BBs were released and quantified. C-SPRA-MB provides high-throughput and accurate assays for assessments of chemicals, including with low-potency as skin sensitizers and poor water solubility. C-SPRA-MB may be useful for effective prediction of their skin sensitization potential in the process of compound screening, especially in the case of misclassified by DPRA and ADRA. Thus, C-SPRA-MB can be applied to assessing the sensitization potential of medical, pharmaceutical, cosmetics, and industrial compounds.

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay with fluorescence detection and its application to multi-constituent substances

The Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay (ADRA) is an in chemico alternative to animal testing for the prediction of skin sensitization potential. Although co-elution of test chemicals and nucleophilic reagents during HPLC analysis is sometimes problematic when using the Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA), it rarely occurs when using ADRA. Nevertheless, the application of either of these tests to multi-constituent substances requires nucleophilic reagents capable of selective detection. With this issue in mind, the authors developed an ADRA fluorescence detection method (ADRA-FL), which utilizes the natural fluorescence of ADRA nucleophilic reagents. In this study, we demonstrate the efficacy of ADRA-FL by testing 82 test chemicals used in the development of both DPRA and the conventional ADRA (ADRA-UV) as well as establish a threshold value for distinguishing sensitizers and non-sensitizers. Our results show that not only are depletion values obtained using ADRA-FL virtually identical to those obtained using ADRA-UV, the threshold value for either test is 4.9%. Additionally, in order to demonstrate the applicability of ADRA-FL to multi-constituent substances, we prepared test samples that consisted of a set of 10 non-sensitizers combined with one of 10 different sensitizers and tested each using ADRA-FL. The test results were concordant with those obtained using ADRA-UV. Also, because ADRA-FL chromatograms showed a significant decrease in multiple peaks as well as extremely stable baselines, we conclude that ADRA-FL is a highly selective and highly accurate mans of quantifying nucleophilic reagents that is applicable to a wide variety of chemical substances.

Development of photo-amino acid derivative reactivity assay: a novel in chemico alternative method for predicting photoallergy

Photoallergy test of cosmetics and several types of pharmaceutical substances is often necessary for obtaining approval from authorities. However, there are no official test guidelines for photoallergy evaluation. Therefore, we tried to establish a photoallergy test by utilizing an in chemico alternative sensitization method, amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA). To determine the criteria for judging the photoallergy potential, photo-ADRA with or without photoirradiation was performed using 60 photoallergenic chemicals, and cysteine and lysine derivatives were detected using high-performance liquid chromatography either by absorbance or fluorescence measurement. The accuracy of prediction was 81.4% (48 of 59) and 80.0% (48 of 60) using the absorbance and fluorescence methods, respectively. However, as chemicals can breakdown into multiple chemicals during photoirradiation, the absorbance method often cannot perform accurate detection due to co-elution, whereas the fluorescence method can do this due to lack of co-elution. Moreover, all eight chemicals that were found to be negative or false-positive for photoirritation in the 3T3 neutral red uptake phototoxicity test were confirmed as positive for photoallergy using this method. Furthermore, we prepared three types of pseudo-mixtures where we added one photoallergen along with five nonphotoallergens and performed the photo-ADRA by the ultraviolet and fluorescence methods. The result of the fluorescence method was almost the same as that obtained with the use of a single photoallergen and hence the outcome was not affected by the mixture. Thus, this study not only showed a method of evaluating the photoallergy potential of a single chemical but also a mixture, making it useful as an in chemico photoallergy alternative test.

Oxidation of a cysteine-derived nucleophilic reagent by dimethyl sulfoxide in the amino acid derivative reactivity assay

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA), which is an in chemico alternative to the use of animals in testing for skin sensitization potential, offers significant advantages over the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) in that it utilizes nucleophilic reagents that are sensitive enough to be used with test chemical solutions prepared to concentrations of 1 mm, which is one-hundredth that of DPRA. ADRA testing of hydrophobic or other poorly soluble compounds requires that they be dissolved in a solvent consisting of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and acetonitrile. DMSO is known to promote dimerization by oxidizing thiols, which then form disulfide bonds. We investigated the extent to which DMSO oxidizes the cysteine-derived nucleophilic reagents used in both DPRA and ADRA and found that oxidation of both N-(2-(1-naphthyl)acetyl)-l-cysteine (NAC) and cysteine peptide increases as the concentration of DMSO increases, thereby lowering the concentration of the nucleophilic reagent. We also found that use of a solvent consisting of 5% DMSO in acetonitrile consistently lowered NAC concentrations by about 0.4 μm relative to the use of solvents containing no DMSO. We also tested nine sensitizers and four nonsensitizers having different sensitization potencies to compare NAC depletion with and without 5% DMSO and found that reactivity was about the same with either solvent. Based on the above, we conclude that the use of a solvent containing 5% DMSO has no effect on the accuracy of ADRA test results. We plan to review and propose revisions to OECD Test Guideline 442C based on the above investigation.

Applicability of amino acid derivative reactivity assay for prediction of skin sensitization by combining multiple alternative methods to evaluate key events

Amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) has previously been developed as an alternative method to direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) to evaluate key event 1 in skin sensitization mechanisms. However, when using alternative methods for skin sensitization, integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA) that combine the results of multiple tests evaluating different key events are generally required. To verify whether ADRA can be used in IATA, we replaced DPRA with ADRA in five IATA methods combining DPRA, KeratinoSens, and h-CLAT: (i) the "2 out of 3" approach, (ii) the "3 out of 3" approach, (iii) sequential testing strategy (STS), (iv) integrated testing strategy by scoring approach (ITS-SA), and (v) the "ITS by two methods approach" (ITS-2MA). The prediction accuracy of the "2 out of 3" approach using ADRA (1 mM) and ADRA (0.5 mg/mL) was 90.0% and 91.1%, respectively, for human data, and was very similar to that obtained using DPRA (91.1%). The "3 out of 3" approach also showed good predictability (83.2%) using either ADRA (1 mM) or ADRA (0.5 mg/mL) compared to DPRA. Regarding the accuracy of the prediction of sensitization intensity for the human data by the third classification, prediction accuracy using ADRA was almost the same as STS, ITS-SA, or ITS-2MA using DPRA. As a result, this study showed that ADRA can be used as a test method for key event 1 in the evaluation of skin sensitization by combining multiple alternative methods.

Precipitation of test chemicals in reaction solutions used in the amino acid derivative reactivity assay and the direct peptide reactivity assay

The Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay (ADRA) was developed by the authors as an in chemico alternative to animal testing for skin sensitization potential. Although ADRA is based on the same scientific principles as the Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA), a comparison of the results from these two test methods shows a far lower incidence of precipitation of test chemicals in reaction solutions for ADRA than for DPRA. Specifically, a comparison of the results for 82 test chemicals that were tested using both DPRA and ADRA showed that while there were 30 chemicals tested using DPRA for which precipitation was found in the reaction solution, there were just three chemicals tested using ADRA for which even slight turbidity was found in the reaction solution. In contrast to the fact that many DPRA test chemicals with a n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient (LogKow) of 2.0 or higher exhibited precipitation, there were only three ADRA test chemicals that exhibited turbidity, and these were all highly hydrophobic with a LogKow of greater than 6.0. Moreover, one of the DPRA test chemicals that exhibited precipitation also gave a false negative result, suggesting that anytime a test chemical exhibits precipitation in the reaction solution during DPRA testing the results must be interpreted with the greatest care, although all false positives are not caused by precipitation of test chemicals. Therefore, since relatively few ADRA test chemicals exhibited precipitation relative to DPRA, we consider ADRA to be an extremely useful means of testing a wide variety of chemical substances.

The underlying factors that explain why nucleophilic reagents rarely co-elute with test chemicals in the ADRA

The Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay (ADRA) is an in chemico alternative to animal testing for skin sensitization potential that uses two different nucleophilic reagents and it is known that ADRA hardly exhibts co-elution compared with the Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) based on the same scientific principles. In this study, we have analyzed the factors underlying why co-elution, which is sometimes an issue during DPRA testing, virtually never occurs during ADRA testing. Chloramine T and dimethyl isophthalate both exhibited co-elution during DPRA testing, but when quantified at both DPRA's 220 nm and ADRA's 281 nm, we found that when the later detection wavelength was used, these test chemicals produced extremely small peaks that did not interfere with quantification of the peptides. And although both salicylic acid and penicillin G exhibited co-elution during DPRA testing, when tested at a concentration just 1% of that used in DPRA, the very broad peak produced at the higher concentration was reduced significantly. However, both these test chemicals exhibited very sharp peaks when the pH of the injection sample was adjusted to be acidic. Based on these results, we were able to clarify that the reasons why nucleophlic reagents hardly co-elute with test chemicals during ADRA testing are depend on the following three major reasons: (1)differences in the detection wavelength, (2)differences in test chemical concentrations in the injection sample, (3)differences in composition of the injection solvent.