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

Development of an in chemico high-throughput screening method for the identification of skin sensitization potential

It is well established that chemical-peptide conjugation represents the molecular initiating event (MIE) in skin sensitization. This MIE has been successfully exploited in the development of in chemico peptide reactivity assays, with the Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) being validated as a screening tool for skin sensitization hazard as well as an OECD test guideline. This test relies on the use of a high-performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet detection method to quantify chemical-peptide conjugation through measurement of the depletion of two synthetic peptides containing lysine or cysteine residues, which is labor-intensive and time-consuming. To improve assay throughput, sensitivity, and accuracy, we have developed a spectrophotometric assay for skin sensitization potential based on MIE measurement-the ProtReact assay. ProtReact is also a cheaper, faster, simpler, and more accessible alternative for the DPRA, giving comparable results. A set of 106 chemicals was tested with ProtReact and the peptide depletion values compared with those reported for the DPRA. The predictive capacity of both assays was evaluated with human reference data. ProtReact and DPRA assays show similar predictive capacities for hazard identification (75% and 74%, respectively), although ProtReact showed a higher specificity (86% versus 74%, respectively) and lower sensitivity (69% versus 73%). Overall, the results show that ProtReact assay described here represents an efficient, economic, and accurate assay for the prediction of skin sensitization potential of chemical haptens.

Immunotoxicity In Vitro Assays for Environmental Pollutants under Paradigm Shift in Toxicity Tests

With the outbreak of COVID-19, increasingly more attention has been paid to the effects of environmental factors on the immune system of organisms, because environmental pollutants may act in synergy with viruses by affecting the immunity of organisms. The immune system is a developing defense system formed by all metazoans in the course of struggling with various internal and external factors, whose damage may lead to increased susceptibility to pathogens and diseases. Due to a greater vulnerability of the immune system, immunotoxicity has the potential to be the early event of other toxic effects, and should be incorporated into environmental risk assessment. However, compared with other toxicity endpoints, e.g., genotoxicity, endocrine toxicity, or developmental toxicity, there are many challenges for the immunotoxicity test of environmental pollutants; this is due to the lack of detailed mechanisms of action and reliable assay methods. In addition, with the strong appeal for animal-free experiments, there has been a significant shift in the toxicity test paradigm, from traditional animal experiments to high-throughput in vitro assays that rely on cell lines. Therefore, there is an urgent need to build high-though put immunotoxicity test methods to screen massive environmental pollutants. This paper reviews the common methods of immunotoxicity assays, including assays for direct immunotoxicity and skin sensitization. Direct immunotoxicity mainly refers to immunosuppression, for which the assays mostly use mixed immune cells or isolated single cells from animals with obvious problems, such as high cost, complex experimental operation, strong variability and so on. Meanwhile, there have been no stable and standard cell lines targeting immune functions developed for high-throughput tests. Compared with direct immunotoxicity, skin sensitizer screening has developed relatively mature in vitro assay methods based on an adverse outcome pathway (AOP), which points out the way forward for the paradigm shift in toxicity tests. According to the experience of skin sensitizer screening, this paper proposes that we also should seek appropriate nodes and establish more complete AOPs for immunosuppression and other immune-mediated diseases. Then, effective in vitro immunotoxicity assay methods can be developed targeting key events, simultaneously coordinating the studies of the chemical immunotoxicity mechanism, and further promoting the paradigm shift in the immunotoxicity test.

Pre-validation study of spectrophotometric direct peptide reactivity assay (Spectro-DPRA) as a modified in chemico skin sensitization test method

Skin sensitization is induced when certain chemicals bind to skin proteins. Direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) has been adopted by the OECD as an alternative method to evaluate skin sensitization by assessing a substance's reaction to two model peptides. A modified spectrophotometric method, Spectro-DPRA, can evaluate skin sensitization, in a high throughput fashion, to obviate some limitations of DPRA. Pre-validation studies for Spectro-DPRA were conducted to determine transferability and proficiency, within- and between-laboratory reproducibility, and predictive ability based on GLP principles at three laboratories (AP, KTR, and KCL). All laboratories confirmed high (> 90%) concordance for evaluating the sensitivity induced by ten chemical substances. The concordance among the three tests performed by each laboratory was 90% for AP, 100% for KTR, and 100% for KCL. The mean accuracy of the laboratories was 93.3% [compared to the standard operating procedure (SOP)]. The reproducibility among the three laboratories was as high as 86.7%; the accuracy was 86.7% for AP, 100% for KTR, and 86.7% for KCL (compared to the SOP). An additional 54 substances were assessed in 3 separate labs to verify the prediction rate. Based on the result, 29 out of 33 substances were classified as sensitizers, and 19 out of 21 identified as non-sensitizers; the corresponding sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values were 87.9%, 90.5%, and 88.9%, respectively. These findings indicate that the Spectro-DPRA can address the molecular initiating event with improved predictability and reproducibility, while saving time and cost compared to DPRA or ADRA.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.