1
|
Kimber I. The activity of methacrylate esters in skin sensitisation test methods II. A review of complementary and additional analyses. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2020; 119:104821. [PMID: 33186628 DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2020.104821] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2020] [Revised: 10/29/2020] [Accepted: 11/05/2020] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ian Kimber
- Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
de Ávila RI, Lindstedt M, Valadares MC. The 21st Century movement within the area of skin sensitization assessment: From the animal context towards current human-relevant in vitro solutions. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2019; 108:104445. [PMID: 31430506 DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.104445] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2019] [Revised: 08/13/2019] [Accepted: 08/15/2019] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Renato Ivan de Ávila
- Laboratory of Education and Research in In Vitro Toxicology (Tox In), Faculty of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás State, Brazil
| | - Malin Lindstedt
- Department of Immunotechnology, Medicon Village, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Marize Campos Valadares
- Laboratory of Education and Research in In Vitro Toxicology (Tox In), Faculty of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás State, Brazil.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kleinstreuer NC, Hoffmann S, Alépée N, Allen D, Ashikaga T, Casey W, Clouet E, Cluzel M, Desprez B, Gellatly N, Göbel C, Kern PS, Klaric M, Kühnl J, Martinozzi-Teissier S, Mewes K, Miyazawa M, Strickland J, van Vliet E, Zang Q, Petersohn D. Non-animal methods to predict skin sensitization (II): an assessment of defined approaches *. Crit Rev Toxicol 2018; 48:359-374. [PMID: 29474122 PMCID: PMC7393691 DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2018.1429386] [Citation(s) in RCA: 115] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2017] [Revised: 12/11/2017] [Accepted: 01/03/2018] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole C. Kleinstreuer
- NIH/NIEHS/DNTP/NICEATM, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Stop K2-16, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA; NK, 1-919-541-7997,; WC, 1-919-316-4729,
| | - Sebastian Hoffmann
- seh consulting + services, Stembergring 15, 33106 Paderborn, Germany; +4952518700566;
| | - Nathalie Alépée
- L’Oréal Research & Innovation, Aulnay-sous-Bois, France; NA, ; SM-T,
| | - David Allen
- ILS, P.O. Box 13501, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA, 1-919-281-1110; DA, ; JS, ; QZ,
| | - Takao Ashikaga
- Shiseido, 2-2-1, Hayabuchi, Tsuzuki-ku, Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa 224-8558, Japan. Current Address: Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM), National Institute of Health Sciences (NIHS) 1-18-1 Kamiyoga, Setagaya, Tokyo, Japan;
| | - Warren Casey
- NIH/NIEHS/DNTP/NICEATM, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Stop K2-16, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA; NK, 1-919-541-7997,; WC, 1-919-316-4729,
| | - Elodie Clouet
- Pierre Fabre, 3 Avenue Hubert Curien, 31100 Toulouse, France;
| | - Magalie Cluzel
- LVMH, 185 avenue de Verdun, 45804 St Jean de Braye, France;
| | - Bertrand Desprez
- Cosmetics Europe, Avenue Herrmann Debroux 40, 1160 Brussels, Belgium; BD, ; MK,
| | - Nichola Gellatly
- Unilever, Colworth Science Park, Bedford, United Kingdom. Current address: NC3Rs, Gibbs Building, 215 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE, United Kingdom;
| | | | - Petra S. Kern
- Procter & Gamble Services Company NV, Temselaan 100, 1853 Strombeek-Bever, Belgium;
| | - Martina Klaric
- Cosmetics Europe, Avenue Herrmann Debroux 40, 1160 Brussels, Belgium; BD, ; MK,
| | - Jochen Kühnl
- Beiersdorf AG, Unnastraße 48, 20245 Hamburg, Germany;
| | | | - Karsten Mewes
- Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkelstraße 67, 40589 Düsseldorf, Germany; KM, ; DP,
| | - Masaaki Miyazawa
- Kao Corporation, 2606 Akabane, Ichikai, Haga, Tochigi, 321-3497, Japan;
| | - Judy Strickland
- ILS, P.O. Box 13501, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA, 1-919-281-1110; DA, ; JS, ; QZ,
| | - Erwin van Vliet
- Services & Consultations on Alternative Methods (SeCAM), Via Campagnora 1, 6983, Magliaso, Switzerland;
| | - Qingda Zang
- ILS, P.O. Box 13501, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA, 1-919-281-1110; DA, ; JS, ; QZ,
| | - Dirk Petersohn
- Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkelstraße 67, 40589 Düsseldorf, Germany; KM, ; DP,
| |
Collapse
|