Literature DB >> 27085510

Analysis of the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) variability for assessing the prediction of skin sensitisation potential and potency of chemicals with non-animal approaches.

Coralie Dumont1, João Barroso1, Izabela Matys1, Andrew Worth1, Silvia Casati2.   

Abstract

The knowledge of the biological mechanisms leading to the induction of skin sensitisation has favoured in recent years the development of alternative non-animal methods. During the formal validation process, results from the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) are generally used as reference data to assess the predictive capacity of the non-animal tests. This study reports an analysis of the variability of the LLNA for a set of chemicals for which multiple studies are available and considers three hazard classification schemes: POS/NEG, GHS/CLP and ECETOC. As the type of vehicle used in a LLNA study is known to influence to some extent the results, two analyses were performed: considering the solvent used to test the chemicals and without considering the solvent. The results show that the number of discordant classifications increases when a chemical is tested in more than one solvent. Moreover, it can be concluded that study results leading to classification in the strongest classes (1A and EXT) seem to be more reliable than those in the weakest classes. This study highlights the importance of considering the variability of the reference data when evaluating non-animal tests.
Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alternative methods; ECETOC; GHS/CLP; LLNA variability; Validation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27085510     DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2016.04.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro        ISSN: 0887-2333            Impact factor:   3.500


  9 in total

1.  Skin sensitization in silico protocol.

Authors:  Candice Johnson; Ernst Ahlberg; Lennart T Anger; Lisa Beilke; Romualdo Benigni; Joel Bercu; Sol Bobst; David Bower; Alessandro Brigo; Sarah Campbell; Mark T D Cronin; Ian Crooks; Kevin P Cross; Tatyana Doktorova; Thomas Exner; David Faulkner; Ian M Fearon; Markus Fehr; Shayne C Gad; Véronique Gervais; Amanda Giddings; Susanne Glowienke; Barry Hardy; Catrin Hasselgren; Jedd Hillegass; Robert Jolly; Eckart Krupp; Liat Lomnitski; Jason Magby; Jordi Mestres; Lawrence Milchak; Scott Miller; Wolfgang Muster; Louise Neilson; Rahul Parakhia; Alexis Parenty; Patricia Parris; Alexandre Paulino; Ana Theresa Paulino; David W Roberts; Harald Schlecker; Reinhard Stidl; Diana Suarez-Rodrigez; David T Szabo; Raymond R Tice; Daniel Urbisch; Anna Vuorinen; Brian Wall; Thibaud Weiler; Angela T White; Jessica Whritenour; Joerg Wichard; David Woolley; Craig Zwickl; Glenn J Myatt
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 3.271

Review 2.  Perspectives on In Vitro to In Vivo Extrapolations.

Authors:  Thomas Hartung
Journal:  Appl In Vitro Toxicol       Date:  2018-12-08

Review 3.  Non-animal methods to predict skin sensitization (II): an assessment of defined approaches *.

Authors:  Nicole C Kleinstreuer; Sebastian Hoffmann; Nathalie Alépée; David Allen; Takao Ashikaga; Warren Casey; Elodie Clouet; Magalie Cluzel; Bertrand Desprez; Nichola Gellatly; Carsten Göbel; Petra S Kern; Martina Klaric; Jochen Kühnl; Silvia Martinozzi-Teissier; Karsten Mewes; Masaaki Miyazawa; Judy Strickland; Erwin van Vliet; Qingda Zang; Dirk Petersohn
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 5.635

4.  Standardisation of defined approaches for skin sensitisation testing to support regulatory use and international adoption: position of the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods.

Authors:  S Casati; K Aschberger; J Barroso; W Casey; I Delgado; T S Kim; N Kleinstreuer; H Kojima; J K Lee; A Lowit; H K Park; M J Régimbald-Krnel; J Strickland; M Whelan; Y Yang; Valérie Zuang
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2017-11-10       Impact factor: 5.153

5.  The GARDpotency Assay for Potency-Associated Subclassification of Chemical Skin Sensitizers-Rationale, Method Development, and Ring Trial Results of Predictive Performance and Reproducibility.

Authors:  Robin Gradin; Angelica Johansson; Andy Forreryd; Emil Aaltonen; Anders Jerre; Olivia Larne; Ulrika Mattson; Henrik Johansson
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 6.  A framework for establishing scientific confidence in new approach methodologies.

Authors:  Anna J van der Zalm; João Barroso; Patience Browne; Warren Casey; John Gordon; Tala R Henry; Nicole C Kleinstreuer; Anna B Lowit; Monique Perron; Amy J Clippinger
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2022-08-20       Impact factor: 6.168

7.  QSAR models of human data can enrich or replace LLNA testing for human skin sensitization.

Authors:  Vinicius M Alves; Stephen J Capuzzi; Eugene Muratov; Rodolpho C Braga; Thomas Thornton; Denis Fourches; Judy Strickland; Nicole Kleinstreuer; Carolina H Andrade; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  Green Chem       Date:  2016-10-06       Impact factor: 10.182

8.  Accounting for Precision Uncertainty of Toxicity Testing: Methods to Define Borderline Ranges and Implications for Hazard Assessment of Chemicals.

Authors:  Silke Gabbert; Miriam Mathea; Susanne N Kolle; Robert Landsiedel
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 4.302

9.  Use of LUCS (Light-Up Cell System) as an alternative live cell method to predict human acute oral toxicity.

Authors:  C Gironde; C Dufour; C Furger
Journal:  Toxicol Rep       Date:  2020-02-19
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.