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

Defining the reactivity of nanoparticles to peptides through direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) using a high pressure liquid chromatography system with a diode array detector

The possibility of inducing skin sensitization reactions following exposure to various chemicals can lead to skin diseases, and the evaluation of skin sensitivity to such substances is very important. However, as animal tests for skin sensitization are prohibited, the OECD Test Guideline 442 C was designated as part of an alternative testing method. Therefore, in this study, the reactivity of cysteine and lysine peptides to nanoparticle substrates was identified through HPLC-DAD analysis according to the skin sensitization animal replacement test method specified in the OECD Test Guideline 442 C. In this study, all criteria for skin sensitization experiments specified in OECD Test Guideline 442 C were satisfied. As a result of analyzing the disappearance rates of cysteine and lysine peptides for the five types of nanoparticle substrates (TiO2, CeO2, Co3O4, NiO, and Fe2O3) using the established analytical method, all were identified as positive. Therefore, our findings suggest that basic data from this technique can contribute to skin sensitization studies by providing the depletion percentage of cysteine and lysine peptides for nanoparticle materials that have not yet been tested for skin sensitization.

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.

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.

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.

[In chemico skin sensitization alternative method: development of ADRA and listing to OECD test guideline]

Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay (ADRA) is an alternative method developed based on the principle of covalent bonding between sensitizer and proteins in the early stage of the mechanism of skin sensitization. The Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) with same principle previously listed in the OECD test guidelines (TG) have some problems such as precipitation of the test chemical in the reaction solution and co-elution of the peptide with the test chemical. While, instead of DPRA, the ADRA was developed using two chemically synthesized nucleophilic reagents-namely, NAC and NAL in which naphthalene rings with a high molar absorbance coefficient (MAC) in the ultraviolet range have been introduced to N-termini of the cysteine and lysine that can react with the test chemical. Therefore, in March 2016, we set up a validation team with the aim for adoption in the OECD TG, ADRA's validation tests were conducted. After reporting the results of validation study, holding a third-party evaluation meeting and two commenting rounds, ADRA was able to be adopted in the OECD TG in June 2019. In addition, since the introduction of naphthalene with a high MAC has made it possible to reduce the concentration, enabling the following items. 1) Decrease in the frequency of precipitation of the test chemicals in the reaction solution. 2) Decrease in the frequency of co-eluting of the nucleating reagent and the chemical. 3) Evaluation of chemicals with unknown molecular weight using the gravimetric approach. 4) High-sensitivity detection of nucleophilic reagents by the fluorescence method. 5) Evaluation of the mixture by a combination of the gravimetric approach and fluorescence detection.

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.

Amino Reactivity of Glutardialdehyde and Monoaldehydes─Chemoassay Profile vs Skin Sensitization Potency

Chemoassay profiling of organic electrophiles through the direct peptide reactivity assay has become an OECD-accepted nonanimal component in the REACH evaluation of potential skin sensitizers. For aldehydes forming imines (Schiff bases), however, existing chemoassays yielded inconclusive results, indicating issues with their NH₂ sensitivity and the reversibility of the reaction. In the present study, a new kinetic chemoassay employing the N terminus of glycine-para-nitroanilide, Gly-pNA, as a model nucleophile for protein NH₂ groups is introduced and applied to nine aliphatic monoaldehydes and glutardialdehyde (1,5-pentanedial) that have log K_ow (octanol/water partition coefficient) values from 0.63 to 3.99. The Gly-pNA second-order rate constants k₁ range from 8.56 to 150 L·mol^-1·min^-1 for the monoaldehydes. Interestingly, glutardialdehyde with a k₁ of 17 731 L·mol^-1·min^-1 is 170-fold more reactive than its monoaldehyde counterpart pentanal. This can be rationalized by hydration or tautomerization of the dialdehyde to monoaldehydic forms, now facilitating Schiff base formation through an intramolecular H bond. Comparison with murine local lymph node assay data from the literature reveals that adduct stability in terms of reaction thermodynamics (K = k₁/k_-1^pseudo) rather than formation kinetics (k₁) governs the skin sensitization potency of Schiff-base-forming aldehydes. The discussion includes analytically determined adduct patterns, and the impact of α- and β-carbon substitution as well as hydrophobicity on aldehyde reactivity.

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.