Literature DB >> 33352259

Same-chemical comparison of nonanimal eye irritation test methods: Bovine corneal opacity and permeability, EpiOcular™, isolated chicken eye, ocular Irritection®, OptiSafe™, and short time exposure.

Stewart Lebrun1, Linda Nguyen2, Sara Chavez2, Roxanne Chan2, Debby Le2, Minh Nguyen2, James V Jester3.   

Abstract

The testing and classification of chemicals to determine adverse ocular effects are routinely conducted to ensure that materials are appropriately classified, labeled, and meet regulatory and safety guidelines. We have performed a same-chemical analysis using publicly available validation study results and compared the performance between tests for the same chemicals. To normalize for chemical selection, we matched chemicals tested by pairs of tests so that each matched set compared performance for the exact same chemicals. Same-chemical accuracy comparisons demonstrate a chemical selection effect that results in a wide range of overlapping false-positive (FP) rates and accuracies for all test methods. In addition, the analysis suggests that a tiered-testing strategy with specific combinations of tests can reduce the FP rate for some combinations. However, reductions in the FP rates were typically accompanied by an increase in the false-negative rates, resulting in minimal advantage in terms of accuracy. In addition, actual improvements in the FP rate after retesting positives with a second test are not as good as the theoretical improvements because some chemicals and functional groups appear to be broadly misclassified by all test methods, which, to the extent the tests make the same-chemical misclassifications, reduces the advantage of using tiered-testing strategies.
Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33352259      PMCID: PMC8544240          DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2020.105070

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


  34 in total

1.  The Short Time Exposure (STE) test for predicting eye irritation potential: intra-laboratory reproducibility and correspondence to globally harmonized system (GHS) and EU eye irritation classification for 109 chemicals.

Authors:  Yutaka Takahashi; Kazuhiko Hayashi; Takayuki Abo; Mirei Koike; Hitoshi Sakaguchi; Naohiro Nishiyama
Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 3.500

2.  Establishment of a new in vitro test method for evaluation of eye irritancy using a reconstructed human corneal epithelial model, LabCyte CORNEA-MODEL.

Authors:  Masakazu Katoh; Fumiyasu Hamajima; Takahiro Ogasawara; Ken-ichiro Hata
Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 3.500

Review 3.  A critical review of the assessment of eye irritation potential using the Draize rabbit eye test.

Authors:  M York; W Steiling
Journal:  J Appl Toxicol       Date:  1998 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.446

4.  Study of intra- and interlaboratory variability in the results of rabbit eye and skin irritation tests.

Authors:  C S Weil; R A Scala
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  1971-06       Impact factor: 4.219

5.  CON4EI: Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) test for hazard identification and labelling of eye irritating chemicals.

Authors:  Sandra Verstraelen; Gareth Maglennon; Karen Hollanders; Francis Boonen; Els Adriaens; Nathalie Alépée; Agnieszka Drzewiecka; Katarzyna Gruszka; Helena Kandarova; Jamin A Willoughby; Robert Guest; Jane Schofield; An R Van Rompay
Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 3.500

6.  An in vitro depth of injury prediction model for a histopathologic classification of EPA and GHS eye irritants.

Authors:  Stewart Lebrun; Yilu Xie; Sara Chavez; Roxanne Chan; James V Jester
Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 3.500

7.  Second-phase validation study of short time exposure test for assessment of eye irritation potency of chemicals.

Authors:  Hajime Kojima; Kazuhiko Hayashi; Hitoshi Sakaguchi; Takashi Omori; Takuya Otoizumi; Takashi Sozu; Hirofumi Kuwahara; Takumi Hayashi; Mayumi Sakaguchi; Akemi Toyoda; Haruka Goto; Shinichi Watanabe; Kyoko Ahiko; Tsuneaki Nakamura; Takashi Morimoto
Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 3.500

8.  Justification of the enucleated eye test with eyes of slaughterhouse animals as an alternative to the Draize eye irritation test with rabbits.

Authors:  M K Prinsen; H B Koëter
Journal:  Food Chem Toxicol       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 6.023

9.  Validation of the OptiSafe™ eye irritation test.

Authors:  Neepa Choksi; Stewart Lebrun; Minh Nguyen; Amber Daniel; George DeGeorge; Jamin Willoughby; Adrienne Layton; Donnie Lowther; Jill Merrill; Joanna Matheson; João Barroso; Krystle Yozzo; Warren Casey; David Allen
Journal:  Cutan Ocul Toxicol       Date:  2020-07-16       Impact factor: 1.820

Review 10.  Cosmetics Europe compilation of historical serious eye damage/eye irritation in vivo data analysed by drivers of classification to support the selection of chemicals for development and evaluation of alternative methods/strategies: the Draize eye test Reference Database (DRD).

Authors:  João Barroso; Uwe Pfannenbecker; Els Adriaens; Nathalie Alépée; Magalie Cluzel; Ann De Smedt; Jalila Hibatallah; Martina Klaric; Karsten R Mewes; Marion Millet; Marie Templier; Pauline McNamee
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 5.153

View more
  1 in total

1.  Modeling the antioxidant properties of the eye reduces the false-positive rate of a nonanimal eye irritation test (OptiSafe).

Authors:  Stewart J Lebrun; Sara Chavez; Roxanne Chan; Linda Nguyen; James V Jester
Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 3.685

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.