Literature DB >> 27473337

Can the Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay Be Used for the Identification of Respiratory Sensitization Potential of Chemicals?

Sander Dik1, Emiel Rorije2, Paul Schwillens3, Henk van Loveren1, Janine Ezendam4.   

Abstract

Prospective identification of low molecular weight respiratory sensitizers is difficult due to the current lack of adequate test methods. The direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) seems to be a promising method to determine the sensitization potential of chemicals because it determines the intrinsic characteristic of sensitizers to bind to proteins. It is already applied in the field of skin sensitization, and adaptation to respiratory sensitization has started recently. This article further evaluates the ability of the DPRA to predict the respiratory sensitization potential of chemicals. In addition, the added value of applying High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)-MS and measurements after 20 minutes and 24 hours of incubation was evaluated. Eighteen respiratory sensitizers (10 haptens, 3 prehaptens, and 5 prohaptens) and 14 nonsensitizers were tested with 2-model peptides. Based on peptide depletion, a prediction model was proposed for the identification of (respiratory) sensitizers. Application of mass spectrometry and measurements at 2 time-points increased prediction accuracy of the assay by resolving discordant results. The prediction model correctly identified all haptens and prehaptens as sensitizers. The 5 prohaptens were not identified as sensitizers, most likely due to lack of metabolic activity in the DPRA. All but 1 nonsensitizer was correctly predicted. The model, therefore, shows an accuracy of 78% for the tested dataset. Unfortunately, this assay cannot be used to distinguish respiratory from skin sensitizers. To make this distinction, the DPRA needs to be combined with other test methods that are able to identify respiratory sensitizers.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Toxicology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Keywords:  DPRA; alternatives to animal testing; asthma; predictive toxicology; respiratory sensitization

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27473337     DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfw130

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicol Sci        ISSN: 1096-0929            Impact factor:   4.849


  3 in total

1.  In silico approaches in organ toxicity hazard assessment: Current status and future needs for predicting heart, kidney and lung toxicities.

Authors:  Arianna Bassan; Vinicius M Alves; Alexander Amberg; Lennart T Anger; Lisa Beilke; Andreas Bender; Autumn Bernal; Mark T D Cronin; Jui-Hua Hsieh; Candice Johnson; Raymond Kemper; Moiz Mumtaz; Louise Neilson; Manuela Pavan; Amy Pointon; Julia Pletz; Patricia Ruiz; Daniel P Russo; Yogesh Sabnis; Reena Sandhu; Markus Schaefer; Lidiya Stavitskaya; David T Szabo; Jean-Pierre Valentin; David Woolley; Craig Zwickl; Glenn J Myatt
Journal:  Comput Toxicol       Date:  2021-09-13

2.  Application of the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) to inorganic compounds: a case study of platinum species.

Authors:  Jocelyn D C Hemming; Mark Hosford; Martin M Shafer
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 3.524

3.  Mapping Chemical Respiratory Sensitization: How Useful Are Our Current Computational Tools?

Authors:  Emily Golden; Mikhail Maertens; Thomas Hartung; Alexandra Maertens
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2020-12-15       Impact factor: 3.739

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.