Literature DB >> 27629427

State of the art in non-animal approaches for skin sensitization testing: from individual test methods towards testing strategies.

Janine Ezendam1, Hedwig M Braakhuis2, Rob J Vandebriel2.   

Abstract

The hazard assessment of skin sensitizers relies mainly on animal testing, but much progress is made in the development, validation and regulatory acceptance and implementation of non-animal predictive approaches. In this review, we provide an update on the available computational tools and animal-free test methods for the prediction of skin sensitization hazard. These individual test methods address mostly one mechanistic step of the process of skin sensitization induction. The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization describes the key events (KEs) that lead to skin sensitization. In our review, we have clustered the available test methods according to the KE they inform: the molecular initiating event (MIE/KE1)-protein binding, KE2-keratinocyte activation, KE3-dendritic cell activation and KE4-T cell activation and proliferation. In recent years, most progress has been made in the development and validation of in vitro assays that address KE2 and KE3. No standardized in vitro assays for T cell activation are available; thus, KE4 cannot be measured in vitro. Three non-animal test methods, addressing either the MIE, KE2 or KE3, are accepted as OECD test guidelines, and this has accelerated the development of integrated or defined approaches for testing and assessment (e.g. testing strategies). The majority of these approaches are mechanism-based, since they combine results from multiple test methods and/or computational tools that address different KEs of the AOP to estimate skin sensitization potential and sometimes potency. Other approaches are based on statistical tools. Until now, eleven different testing strategies have been published, the majority using the same individual information sources. Our review shows that some of the defined approaches to testing and assessment are able to accurately predict skin sensitization hazard, sometimes even more accurate than the currently used animal test. A few defined approaches are developed to provide an estimate of the potency sub-category of a skin sensitizer as well, but these approaches need further independent evaluation with a new dataset of chemicals. To conclude, this update shows that the field of non-animal approaches for skin sensitization has evolved greatly in recent years and that it is possible to predict skin sensitization hazard without animal testing.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adverse outcome pathway; Alternatives to animal testing; Hazard assessment; Skin sensitization; Testing strategies

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27629427     DOI: 10.1007/s00204-016-1842-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Toxicol        ISSN: 0340-5761            Impact factor:   5.153


  16 in total

1.  Evaluation of androgen assay results using a curated Hershberger database.

Authors:  N C Kleinstreuer; P Browne; X Chang; R Judson; W Casey; P Ceger; C Deisenroth; N Baker; K Markey; R S Thomas
Journal:  Reprod Toxicol       Date:  2018-09-08       Impact factor: 3.143

Review 2.  Skin and respiratory chemical allergy: confluence and divergence in a hybrid adverse outcome pathway.

Authors:  Ian Kimber; Alan Poole; David A Basketter
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2018-01-26       Impact factor: 3.524

Review 3.  International regulatory requirements for skin sensitization testing.

Authors:  Amber B Daniel; Judy Strickland; David Allen; Silvia Casati; Valérie Zuang; João Barroso; Maurice Whelan; M J Régimbald-Krnel; Hajime Kojima; Akiyoshi Nishikawa; Hye-Kyung Park; Jong Kwon Lee; Tae Sung Kim; Isabella Delgado; Ludmila Rios; Ying Yang; Gangli Wang; Nicole Kleinstreuer
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 3.271

4.  Use of Lhasa Limited Products for the In Silico Prediction of Drug Toxicity.

Authors:  David J Ponting; Michael J Burns; Robert S Foster; Rachel Hemingway; Grace Kocks; Donna S MacMillan; Andrew L Shannon-Little; Rachael E Tennant; Jessica R Tidmarsh; David J Yeo
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

Review 5.  A decade of toxicological trends: what the papers say.

Authors:  Phumzile Sikakana; Ruth A Roberts
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 3.524

Review 6.  [Toxicological risk assessment using the example of potential contact sensitization to resorcinol].

Authors:  C Goebel; M Kock; H Merk
Journal:  Hautarzt       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 0.751

Review 7.  Adverse outcome pathways: a concise introduction for toxicologists.

Authors:  Mathieu Vinken; Dries Knapen; Lucia Vergauwen; Jan G Hengstler; Michelle Angrish; Maurice Whelan
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 5.153

Review 8.  Innovative organotypic in vitro models for safety assessment: aligning with regulatory requirements and understanding models of the heart, skin, and liver as paradigms.

Authors:  Chris S Pridgeon; Constanze Schlott; Min Wei Wong; Minne B Heringa; Tobias Heckel; Joe Leedale; Laurence Launay; Vitalina Gryshkova; Stefan Przyborski; Rachel N Bearon; Emma L Wilkinson; Tahera Ansari; John Greenman; Delilah F G Hendriks; Sue Gibbs; James Sidaway; Rowena L Sison-Young; Paul Walker; Mike J Cross; B Kevin Park; Chris E P Goldring
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 5.153

9.  Determination of Protein Haptenation by Chemical Sensitizers Within the Complexity of the Human Skin Proteome.

Authors:  Erika Parkinson; Maja Aleksic; Richard Cubberley; Gushinder Kaur-Atwal; Johannes P C Vissers; Paul Skipp
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 10.  Recent advances in understanding and managing contact dermatitis.

Authors:  Stefan F Martin; Thomas Rustemeyer; Jacob P Thyssen
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2018-06-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.