Literature DB >> 27477089

Chemical applicability domain of the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) for skin sensitisation potency. Part 3. Apparent discrepancies between LLNA and GPMT sensitisation potential: False positives or differences in sensitivity?

David W Roberts1, Terry W Schultz2, Anne Marie Api3.   

Abstract

The Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) is the gold standard regulatory toxicology test for skin sensitisation along with the guinea pig maximisation test (GPMT). Compared with the GPMT, LLNA uses fewer animals, it is quantitative, and it gives a numerical prediction of potency. However several concerns have been raised with this assay, mainly related to false positives and false negatives. Over the years, many authors, including the developers of the assay, have presented cases where there have been discrepancies between the GMPT and LLNA results. Several theories have been put forward for these discrepancies, the main one being the "over-sensitivity" of the GPMT. This paper analyses the data from a systematic study, published in three papers from 2008 to 2011, covering several classes of chemicals, in particular unsaturated fatty acids, sugar surfactants and ethoxylated alcohols, with many cases of chemicals testing positive in the LLNA being negative in the GPMT. Based on consideration of reaction chemistry and structural alerts, it is concluded that these discrepancies are not LLNA false positives, but can be rationalised in terms of the different protocols of the assays.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Autoxidation; Surfactants; Unsaturated fatty acids

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27477089     DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.07.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol        ISSN: 0273-2300            Impact factor:   3.271


  3 in total

1.  Application of IATA - A case study in evaluating the global and local performance of a Bayesian network model for skin sensitization.

Authors:  J M Fitzpatrick; G Patlewicz
Journal:  SAR QSAR Environ Res       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 3.000

2.  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

3.  Application of Defined Approaches for Skin Sensitization to Agrochemical Products.

Authors:  Judy Strickland; James Truax; Marco Corvaro; Raja Settivari; Joseph Henriquez; Jeremy McFadden; Travis Gulledge; Victor Johnson; Sean Gehen; Dori Germolec; David G Allen; Nicole Kleinstreuer
Journal:  Front Toxicol       Date:  2022-05-02
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.