Prospective multicentre study of the U-SENS test method for skin sensitization testing

Propylene glycol, skin sensitisation and allergic contact dermatitis: A scientific and regulatory conundrum

Propylene glycol (PG) has widespread use in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, fragrances and personal care products. PG is not classified as hazardous under the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) but poses an intriguing scientific and regulatory conundrum with respect to allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), the uncertainty being whether and to what extent PG has the potential to induce skin sensitisation. In this article we review the results of predictive tests for skin sensitisation with PG, and clinical evidence for ACD. Patch testing in humans points to PG having the potential to be a weak allergen under certain conditions, and an uncommon cause of ACD in subjects without underlying/pre-disposing skin conditions. In clear contrast PG is negative in predictive toxicology tests for skin sensitisation, including guinea pig and mouse models (e.g. local lymph node assay), validated in vitro test methods that measure various key events in the pathway leading to skin sensitisation, and predictive methods in humans (Human Repeat Insult Patch and Human Maximisation Tests). We here explore the possible scientific basis for this intriguing inconsistency, recognising there are arguably no known contact allergens that are universally negative in, in vitro, animal and human predictive tests methods.

Reference Chemical Potency List (RCPL): A new tool for evaluating the accuracy of skin sensitisation potency measurements by New Approach Methodologies (NAMs)

Considerable progress has been made in the design of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) for the hazard identification of skin sensitising chemicals. However, effective risk assessment requires accurate measurement of sensitising potency, and this has proven more difficult to achieve without recourse to animal tests. One important requirement for the development and adoption of novel approaches for this purpose is the availability of reliable databases for determining the accuracy with which sensitising potency can be predicted. Some previous approaches have relied on comparisons with potency estimates based on either human or animal (local lymph node assay) data. In contrast, we here describe the development of a carefully curated Reference Chemical Potency List (RCPL) which is based on consideration of the best available human and animal data. The RCPL is comprised of 33 readily available chemicals that span a wide range of chemistry and sensitising potency, and contain examples of both direct and indirect (pre- and pro-) haptens. For each chemical a potency value (PV) was derived, and chemicals ranked according to PV without the use of potency categories. It is proposed that the RCPL provides an effective resource for assessment of the accuracy with which NAMs can measure skin sensitising potency.

Expansion of the Cosmetics Europe skin sensitisation database with new substances and PPRA data

The assessment of skin sensitisation is a key requirement in all regulated sectors, with the European Union's regulation of cosmetic ingredients being most challenging, since it requires quantitative skin sensitisation assessment based on new approach methodologies (NAMs). To address this challenge, an in-depth and harmonised understanding of NAMs is fundamental to inform the assessment. Therefore, we compiled a database of NAMs, and in vivo (human and local lymph node assay) reference data. Here, we expanded this database with 41 substances highly relevant for cosmetic industry. These structurally different substances were tested in six NAMs (Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay, KeratinoSens™, human Cell Line Activation Test, U-SENS™, SENS-IS, Peroxidase Peptide Reactivity Assay). Our analysis revealed that the substances could be tested without technical limitations, but were generally overpredicted when compared to reference results. Reasons for this reduced predictivity were explored through pairwise NAM comparisons and association of overprediction with hydrophobicity. We conclude that more detailed understanding of how NAMs apply to a wider range of substances is needed. This would support a flexible and informed choice of NAMs to be optimally applied in the context of a next generation risk assessment framework, ultimately contributing to the characterisation and reduction of uncertainty.

Amending the U-SENS™ skin sensitization test method for interfering auto-fluorescent chemicals

Limitations of the applicability domain of new approach methodologies (NAM) present a major challenge for the testing of cosmetic ingredients in Europe, as the regulation does not allow to resort to in vivo test method. Therefore, research focused on overcoming such limitations of established in vitro test methods is frequently conducted. Here, we address a limitation of the U-SENS™, an in vitro skin sensitization test method that addresses the key event 3 on activation of dendritic cells of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization. The applicability domain of the U-SENS™ excludes autofluorescent substances that can interfere with the measurement of the expression of CD86, i.e., the primary readout. An evaluation of several fluorochromes identified APC as most suitable for testing auto-fluorescent chemicals. Acceptance criteria were reproducibly met when using the APC-labelled antibody. Equivalent performance in terms of reproducibility and skin sensitisation hazard assessment of the standard FITC-labelled antibodies and the APC-labelled antibodies was demonstrated by testing 40 substances. Finally, the value of the expanded technical applicability domain was highlighted with a case study using sulfuretin. In conclusion, we successfully demonstrated the expansion of the U-SENS™ applicability domain to interfering auto-fluorescent chemicals by using APC-labelled antibodies.

Determination of Chemical Irritation Potential Using a Defined Gene Signature Set on Tissue-Engineered Human Skin Equivalents

There are no physical or visual manifestations that define skin sensitivity or irritation; a subjective diagnosis is made on the basis of the evaluation of clinical presentations, including burning, prickling, erythema, and itching. Adverse skin reaction in response to topically applied products is common and can limit the use of dermatological or cosmetic products. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of human skin equivalents based on immortalized skin keratinocytes and evaluate the potential of a 22-gene panel in combination with multivariate analysis to discriminate between chemicals known to act as irritants and those that do not. Test compounds were applied topically to full-thickness human skin equivalent or human ex vivo skin and gene signatures determined for known irritants and nonirritants. Principle component analysis showed the discriminatory potential of the 22-gene panel. Linear discrimination analysis, performed to further refine the gene set for a more high-throughput analysis, identified a putative seven-gene panel (IL-6, PTGS2, ATF3, TRPV3, MAP3K8, HMGB2, and matrix metalloproteinase gene MMP-3) that could distinguish potential irritants from nonirritants. These data offer promise as an in vitro prediction tool, although analysis of a large chemical test set is required to further evaluate the system.

Development of quantitative model of a local lymph node assay for evaluating skin sensitization potency applying machine learning CatBoost

The estimated concentrations for a stimulation index of 3 (EC3) in murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) is an important quantitative value for determining the strength of skin sensitization to chemicals, including cosmetic ingredients. However, animal testing bans on cosmetics in Europe necessitate the development of alternative testing methods to LLNA. A machine learning-based prediction method can predict complex toxicity risks from multiple variables. Therefore, we developed an LLNA EC3 regression model using CatBoost, a new gradient boosting decision tree, based on the reliable Cosmetics Europe database which included data for 119 substances. We found that a model using in chemico/in vitro tests, physical properties, and chemical information associated with key events of skin sensitization adverse outcome pathway as variables showed the best performance with a coefficient of determination (R²) of 0.75. In addition, this model can indicate the variable importance as the interpretation of the model, and the most important variable was associated with the human cell line activation test that evaluate dendritic cell activation. The good performance and interpretability of our LLNA EC3 predictable regression model suggests that it could serve as a useful approach for quantitative assessment of skin sensitization.

Next generation risk assessment for skin sensitisation: A case study with propyl paraben

Skin sensitisation is a key adverse health effect to be addressed in the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients. Regulatory demands have urged the development of Next Generation Risk Assessment (NGRA) using New Approach Methodologies (NAM) and Defined Approaches (DA) instead of animal models. An illustrative NGRA case study shall demonstrate if the use of propyl paraben at 0.2% in a face cream was safe for consumers. A sequential stacking tier testing DA based on NAM data predicted propyl paraben to be a non-sensitiser, while some NAM input data showed positive results. To increase confidence, structurally related parabens were considered, which revealed NAM and DA hazard predictions similar to those of propyl paraben, non-sensitiser classifications in animal models and very rare cases of human skin allergy. Based on a weight of evidence it was decided that propyl paraben should be considered a non-sensitiser leading to a favourable NGRA conclusion, in line with traditional risk assessment. Examination of an ab initio NGRA based on NAM and metabolism data resulted in a more conservative weak sensitiser consideration as point of departure, which still led to a favourable conclusion.

The activity of methacrylate esters in skin sensitisation test methods II. A review of complementary and additional analyses

Allergic contact dermatitis is an important occupational health issue, and there is a need to identify accurately those chemicals that have the potential to induce skin sensitisation. Hazard identification was performed initially using animal (guinea pig and mouse) models. More recently, as a result of the drive towards non-animal methods, alternative in vitro and in silico approaches have been developed. Some of these new in vitro methods have been formally validated and have been assigned OECD Test Guideline status. The performance of some of these recently developed in vitro methods, and of 2 quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) approaches, with a series of methacrylate esters has been reviewed and reported previously. In this article that first review has been extended further with additional data and complementary analyses. Results obtained using in vitro methods (Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay, DPRA; ARE-Nrf2 luciferase test methods, KeratinoSens and LuSens; Epidermal Sensitisation Assay, EpiSensA; human Cell Line Activation Test, h-CLAT, and the myeloid U937 Skin Sensitisation test, U-SENS), and 2 QSAR approaches (DEREK™-nexus and TIMES-SS), with 11 methacrylate esters and methacrylic acid are reported here, and compared with existing data from the guinea pig maximisation test and the local lymph node assay. With this series of chemicals it was found that some in vitro tests (DPRA and ARE-Nrf2 luciferase) performed well in comparison with animal test results and available human skin sensitisation data. Other in vitro tests (EpiSensA and h-CLAT) proved rather more problematic. Results with DEREK™-nexus and TIMES-SS failed to reflect accurately the skin sensitisation potential of the methacrylate esters. The implications for assessment of skin sensitising activity are discussed.

Skin sensitisation testing in practice: Applying a stacking meta model to cosmetic ingredients

Recently, several non-animal approaches contributing to the identification of skin sensitisation hazard have been introduced. Their validation and acceptance has largely been directed towards regulatory classification. Considering the driving force for replacement of in vivo tests centred on cosmetics, it is reasonable to ask how well the new approaches perform in this respect. In the present study, 219 substances, largely cosmetic raw materials (including dyes, preservatives and fragrances), have been evaluated in our Defined Approach integrating a stacking meta model (version 5), incorporating the individual outcomes of 3 in vitro validated methods (Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay, Keratinosens™, U-SENS™), 2 in silico tools (TIMES SS, TOXTREE) and physicochemical parameters (volatility, pH). Stacking meta model outcomes were compared with existing local lymph node assay (LLNA) data. Non-sensitisers comprised 68/219; 86 were weak/moderate and 65 were stronger sensitisers. The model version revision demonstrate the gain to discriminate sensitizers to non-sensitiser when the in silico TIMES model is incorporated as input parameter. The 85% to 91% accuracy for the cosmetics categories, indicates the stacking meta model offers value for the next generation risk assessment framework. These results pinpoint the power of the stacking meta model relying on a confidence based on the probability given in any individual prediction.

The 21st Century movement within the area of skin sensitization assessment: From the animal context towards current human-relevant in vitro solutions

In a regulatory context, skin sensitization hazard and risk evaluations of manufactured products and their ingredients (e.g. cosmetics) are mandatory in several regions. Great efforts have been made within the field of 21st Century Toxicology to provide non-animal testing approaches to assess the skin allergy potential of materials (e.g. chemicals, mixtures, nanomaterials, particles). Mechanistic understanding of skin sensitization process through the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) has promoted the development of in vitro methods, demonstrating accuracies superior to the traditional animal testing. These in vitro testing approaches are based on one of the four AOP key events (KE) of skin sensitization: formation of immunogenic hapten-protein complexes (KE-1 or the molecular initiating event, MIE), inflammatory keratinocyte responses (KE-2), dendritic cell activation (KE-3), and T-lymphocyte activation and proliferation (KE-4). This update provides an overview of the historically used in vivo methods as well as the current in chemico and in cell methods with and without OECD guideline designations to analyze the progress towards human-relevant in vitro test methods for safety assessment of the skin allergenicity potential of materials. Here our focus is to review 96 in vitro testing approaches directed to the KEs of the skin sensitization AOP.

The activity of methacrylate esters in skin sensitisation test methods: A review

Skin sensitisation associated with allergic contact dermatitis is an important occupational and environmental disease. The identification of skin sensitisation hazards was traditionally performed using animal tests; originally guinea pig assays and subsequently the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA). More recently there has, for a variety of reasons, been an increased interest in, and requirement for, non-animal assays. There are now available both validated in vitro assays and a variety of approaches based on consideration of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR). With the increased availability and use of non-animal alternatives for skin sensitisation testing there is a continuing need to monitor the performance of these approaches using series of chemicals that do not normally form part of validation exercises. Here we report studies conducted with 11 methacrylate esters and methacrylic acid in which results obtained with 3 validated in vitro tests for which there are OECD guidelines (the Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay, DPRA; ARE-Nrf2 luciferase test methods, and - with some chemicals - a dendritic cell activation test, the myeloid U937 Skin Sensitisation test [U-SENS] assay) have been compared with QSAR approaches (DEREK and TIMES-SS), and with LLNA and guinea pig maximisation test (GPMT) data. The conclusions drawn from these data are that - with this series of chemicals at least - there is a strong correlation between the results of animal tests and the in vitro assays considered, but not with either DEREK or TIMES-SS.

Non-animal methods to predict skin sensitization (II): an assessment of defined approaches *

Skin sensitization is a toxicity endpoint of widespread concern, for which the mechanistic understanding and concurrent necessity for non-animal testing approaches have evolved to a critical juncture, with many available options for predicting sensitization without using animals. Cosmetics Europe and the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods collaborated to analyze the performance of multiple non-animal data integration approaches for the skin sensitization safety assessment of cosmetics ingredients. The Cosmetics Europe Skin Tolerance Task Force (STTF) collected and generated data on 128 substances in multiple in vitro and in chemico skin sensitization assays selected based on a systematic assessment by the STTF. These assays, together with certain in silico predictions, are key components of various non-animal testing strategies that have been submitted to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development as case studies for skin sensitization. Curated murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and human skin sensitization data were used to evaluate the performance of six defined approaches, comprising eight non-animal testing strategies, for both hazard and potency characterization. Defined approaches examined included consensus methods, artificial neural networks, support vector machine models, Bayesian networks, and decision trees, most of which were reproduced using open source software tools. Multiple non-animal testing strategies incorporating in vitro, in chemico, and in silico inputs demonstrated equivalent or superior performance to the LLNA when compared to both animal and human data for skin sensitization.

Predicting Chemically Induced Skin Sensitization by Using In Chemico / In Vitro Methods

Over the recent years development toward assessing skin sensitization hazard has moved toward non-animal testing methods. These methods are based on the key events as described in the OECD Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization initiated by covalent binding to proteins. As these individual methods address mainly one mechanistic event (key event) in the initiation of skin sensitization, combination of different methods are needed to conclude on the skin sensitization hazard. Validated and regulatory adopted (EU and OECD) in chemico/in vitro methods are available for KEs 1-3 and are presented here. This chapter also illustrates how individual test methods can be combined by providing two examples of defined approaches to testing and assessment for skin sensitization hazard identification and assessment.

Applicability of an Integrated Testing Strategy consisting of in silico, in chemico and in vitro assays for evaluating the skin sensitization potencies of isocyanates

The skin sensitization potential of chemicals has been traditionally assessed using regulatory accepted in vivo methods, such as guinea pig maximization test or mouse local lymph node assays (LLNAs). A huge effort to reduce and replace the use of animals for safety assessments of chemicals because of regulatory requirements and ethical issues is presently underway, and alternative non-animal methods have been greatly developed. So far, a few studies have investigated the sensitization potencies of isocyanates which is a group of highly reactive chemicals that are known to be occupational allergens. The present study evaluated nine commonly used isocyanates using an in vivo LLNA and assessed the applicability of an Integrated Testing Strategy (ITS) consisting of an in silico Derek Nexus prediction, an in chemico direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), and an in vitro human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT) to isocyanates. All nine isocyanates were evaluated as positive using the LLNA, Derek Nexus and DPRA, whereas seven chemicals tested positive using the h-CLAT: hexamethylene diisocyanate tested negative, and 1,5-diisocyanatonaphthalene could not be examined because of a solubility issue. When assessed using the ITS, the positive/negative evaluations of skin sensitization hazard were consistent with those assessed using the LLNA for all nine chemicals. However, the potency prediction results of the ITS tended to be underestimated, compared with those of the LLNA. The data presented in this work provide insights into the performance of non-animal testing approaches for evaluating the skin sensitization potencies of isocyanates.

Comparison and validation of an in vitro skin sensitization strategy using a data set of 33 chemical references

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an adverse health effect that develops following repeated exposure to skin sensitizing chemicals. An animal testing ban has been applied in EU, leading to development of reliably predictive non-animal methods. Several in vitro methods have been developed as alternatives but one single non-animal test method is not been sufficient to fully address since the LLNA test ban. Here, we have selected an ITS (Integrated Testing Strategy) for skin sensitization which focuses on three in vitro methods that covered the first three steps of the AOP (DPRA, SENS-IS or h-CLAT). The aim of this study was to compare these three methods due to the WoE approach based on a 2-out-of-3-assessment. The results of 33 references were compared to in vivo data (especially human). We have shown that tested firstly DPRA and SENS-IS have permitted to conclude on 29 of 33 chemicals, whereas DPRA and h-CLAT on 25, and SENS-IS and h-CLAT on 23. With this sequence, DPRA and SENS-IS and then h-CLAT in case of equivocal results, we conclude more quickly by performing fewer tests. Thereby, we have shown that it is better to follow a preferential sequence than testing chemicals simultaneously with these three methods.

State of the art in non-animal approaches for skin sensitization testing: from individual test methods towards testing strategies

The hazard assessment of skin sensitizers relies mainly on animal testing, but much progress is made in the development, validation and regulatory acceptance and implementation of non-animal predictive approaches. In this review, we provide an update on the available computational tools and animal-free test methods for the prediction of skin sensitization hazard. These individual test methods address mostly one mechanistic step of the process of skin sensitization induction. The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization describes the key events (KEs) that lead to skin sensitization. In our review, we have clustered the available test methods according to the KE they inform: the molecular initiating event (MIE/KE1)-protein binding, KE2-keratinocyte activation, KE3-dendritic cell activation and KE4-T cell activation and proliferation. In recent years, most progress has been made in the development and validation of in vitro assays that address KE2 and KE3. No standardized in vitro assays for T cell activation are available; thus, KE4 cannot be measured in vitro. Three non-animal test methods, addressing either the MIE, KE2 or KE3, are accepted as OECD test guidelines, and this has accelerated the development of integrated or defined approaches for testing and assessment (e.g. testing strategies). The majority of these approaches are mechanism-based, since they combine results from multiple test methods and/or computational tools that address different KEs of the AOP to estimate skin sensitization potential and sometimes potency. Other approaches are based on statistical tools. Until now, eleven different testing strategies have been published, the majority using the same individual information sources. Our review shows that some of the defined approaches to testing and assessment are able to accurately predict skin sensitization hazard, sometimes even more accurate than the currently used animal test. A few defined approaches are developed to provide an estimate of the potency sub-category of a skin sensitizer as well, but these approaches need further independent evaluation with a new dataset of chemicals. To conclude, this update shows that the field of non-animal approaches for skin sensitization has evolved greatly in recent years and that it is possible to predict skin sensitization hazard without animal testing.