Assessment of the skin sensitization potency of eugenol and its dimers using a non-radioisotopic modification of the local lymph node assay

Allergic contact dermatitis is a serious health problem. There is a need to identify and characterize skin sensitization hazards, particularly with respect to relative potency, so that accurate risk assessments can be developed. For these purposes the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) was developed. Here, we have investigated further a modi fi cation of this assay, non-radioisotopic LLNA, which in place of tritiated thymidine to measure lymph node cell proliferation employs incorporation of 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine. Using this method we have examined the skin sensitizing activity of eugenol, a known human contact allergen, and its dimers 2,2'-dihydroxyl-3,3'-dimethoxy-5,5'-diallyl-biphenyl (DHEA) and 4,5'-diallyl-2'-hydroxy-2,3'-dimethoxy phenyl ether (DHEB). Activity in the guinea pig maximization test (GPMT) also measured. On the basis of GPMT assays, eugenol was classified as a mild skin sensitizer, DHEA as a weak skin sensitizer and DHEB as an extreme skin sensitizer. In the non-radioisotopic LLNA all chemicals were found to give positive responses insofar as each was able to provoke a stimulation index (SI) of >or=3 at one or more test concentrations. The relative skin sensitizing potency of these chemicals was evaluated in the non-radioisotopic LLNA by derivation of an ec(3) value (the concentration of chemical required to provoke an SI of 3). The ec(3) values calculated were 25.1% for eugenol, >30% for DHEA and 2.3% for DHEB. Collectively these data suggest that assessments of relative potency deriving from non-radioisotopic LLNA responses correlate well with evaluations based on GPMT results. These investigations provide support for the proposal that the non-radioisotopic LLNA may serve as an effective alternative to the GPMT where there is a need to avoid the use of radioisotopes.     

Skin irritation and sensitization: mechanisms and new approaches for risk assessment

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a common skin disease with a significant social and economic impact. In contrast to irritation, skin sensitization is a response of the adaptive immune system, in which there is a delayed T-cell-mediated allergic response to chemically modified skin proteins. The chemicals that can covalently modify the skin proteins and trigger an allergic reaction are referred to as haptens or sensitizers. Attempts have been made in many countries to reduce the problems of ACD by the implementation of legislations related to skin-sensitizing chemicals, as well as by the early detection and risk assessment of substances with sensitizing properties. For many years, the simple identification of sensitizing chemicals was performed in guinea pig tests. A murine test, the local lymph node assay (LLNA), has been validated as a replacement for the guinea pig tests. Despite the recent introduction of in vitro methods for the identification of sensitizing chemicals, the LLNA results (when coupled with good exposure data) can be used as the starting point for a quantitative risk assessment. The quantitative risk assessment is aimed to identify the safe use thresholds for any potential skin sensitizer.     

The local lymph node assay: current position in the regulatory classification of skin sensitizing chemicals

The local lymph node assay (LLNA) is being used increasingly in the identification of skin sensitizing chemicals for regulatory purposes. In the context of new chemicals legislation (REACH) in Europe, it is the preferred assay. The rationale for this is that the LLNA quantitative and objective approach to skin sensitization testing allied with the important animal welfare benefits that the method offers. However, as with certain guinea pig sensitization tests before it, this increasing use also brings experience with an increasingly wide range of industrial and other chemicals where the outcome of the assay does not always necessarily meet with the expectations of those conducting it. Sometimes, the result appears to be a false negative, but rather more commonly, the complaint is that the chemical represents a false positive. Against this background we have here reviewed a number of instances where false positive and false negative results have been described and have sought to reconcile science with expectation. Based on these analyses, it is our conclusion that false positives and false negatives do occur in the LLNA, as they do with any other skin sensitization assay (and indeed with all tests used for hazard identification), and that this occurs for a number of reasons. We further conclude, however, that false positive results in the LLNA, as with the guinea pig maximization test, arise most commonly via failure to distinguish what is scientifically correct from that which is unpalatable. The consequences of this confusion are discussed in the article, particularly in relation to the need to integrate both potency measurement and risk assessments into classification and labelling schemes that aim to manage potential risks to human health.     

Quantitative relationship between the local lymph node assay and human skin sensitization assays

The local lymph node assay (LLNA) is a new test method which allows for the quantitative assessment of sensitizing potency in the mouse. Here, we investigate the quantitative correlation between results from the LLNA and two human sensitization tests--specifically, human repeat insult patch tests (HRIPTs) and human maximization tests (HMTs). Data for 57 substances were evaluated, of which 46 showed skin sensitizing properties in human tests, whereas 11 yielded negative results in humans. For better comparability data from mouse and human tests were transformed to applied doses per skin area, which ranged over four orders of magnitude for the substances considered. Regression analysis for the 46 human sensitizing substances revealed a significant positive correlation between the LLNA and human tests. The correlation was better between LLNA and HRIPT data (n=23; r=0.77) than between LLNA and HMT data (n=38; r=0.65). The observed scattering of data points is related to various uncertainties, in part associated with insufficiencies of data from older HMT studies. Predominantly negative results in the LLNA for another 11 substances which showed no skin sensitizing activity in human maximization tests further corroborate the correspondence between LLNA and human tests. Based on this analysis, the LLNA can be considered a reliable basis for relative potency assessments for skin sensitizers. Proposals are made for the regulatory exploitation of the LLNA: four potency groups can be established, and assignment of substances to these groups according to the outcome of the LLNA can be used to characterize skin sensitizing potency in substance-specific assessments. Moreover, based on these potency groups, a more adequate consideration of sensitizing substances in preparations becomes possible. It is proposed to replace the current single concentration limit for skin sensitizers in preparations, which leads to an all or nothing classification of a preparation as sensitizing to skin ("R43") in the European Union, by differentiated concentration limits derived from the limits for the four potency groups.     

Skin sensitization potency of isoeugenol and its dimers evaluated by a non-radioisotopic modification of the local lymph node assay and guinea pig maximization test

Allergic contact dermatitis is the serious unwanted effect arising from the use of consumer products such as cosmetics. Isoeugenol is a fragrance chemical with spicy, carnation-like scent, is used in many kinds of cosmetics and is a well-known moderate human sensitizer. It was previously reported that the dimerization of eugenol yielded two types of dimer possessing different sensitization potencies. This study reports the differences in skin sensitization potencies for isoeugenol and two types of dimer, beta-O-4-dilignol and dehydrodiisoeugenol (DIEG), as evaluated by the non-radioisotopic local lymph node assay (non-RI LLNA) and guinea pig maximization test. In the guinea pig maximization test, isoeugenol, beta-O-4-dilignol and DIEG were classified as extreme, weak and moderate sensitizers, respectively. As for the results of non-RI LLNA, the EC3 for isoeugenol, beta-O-4-dilignol and DIEG were calculated as 12.7%, >30% and 9.4%, respectively. The two types of isoeugenol dimer showed different sensitizing activities similar to the case for eugenol dimers. A reduction of sensitization potency achieved by dimerization may lead to developing safer cosmetic ingredients. Isoeugenol dimers are not currently used for fragrance chemicals. However, the dimerization of isoeugenol may yield a promising candidate as a cosmetic ingredient with low sensitization risk. The data may also provide useful information for the structure-activity relationship (SAR) in skin sensitization.     

Proposal for a risk assessment methodology for skin sensitization based on sensitization potency data

In this paper, we propose a quantitative risk assessment methodology for skin sensitization aiming at the derivation of 'safe' exposure levels for sensitizing chemicals, used e.g., as ingredients in consumer products. Given the limited number of sensitizers tested in human sensitization tests, such as the human repeat-insult patch test (HRIPT) or the human maximization test (HMT), we used EC3 values from the local lymph node assay (LLNA) in mice because they provide the best quantitative measure of the skin sensitizing potency of a chemical. A comparison of LLNA EC3 values with HRIPT and HMT LOEL, and NOEL values was carried out and revealed that the EC3, expressed as area dose, can be used as a surrogate value for the human NOEL in risk assessment. The uncertainty/extrapolation factor approach was used to derive (a) an 'acceptable non-sensitizing area dose' (ANSAD) to protect non-allergic individuals against skin sensitization and (b) an 'acceptable non-eliciting area dose' (ANEAD) to protect allergic individuals against elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis. For ANSAD derivation, interspecies, intraspecies and time extrapolation factors are applied to the LLNA EC3. For ANEAD derivation, additional application of a variable sensitization-elicitation extrapolation factor is proposed. Values for extrapolation factors are derived and discussed, the proposed methodology is applied to the sensitizers methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, cinnamic aldehyde and nickel and results are compared to published risk assessments.     

Comparative testing for the identification of skin-sensitizing potentials of nonionic sugar lipid surfactants

The Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) is the preferred test for the identification of skin-sensitizing potentials of chemicals in Europe and is also the first choice method within REACH. In the formal validation, only a very few surfactant chemicals were evaluated and SDS was identified as a false positive. In this study, 10 nonionic sugar lipid surfactants were tested in an LLNA, guinea pig maximization test (GPMT) and human repeated insult patch test. Of the 10 surfactants tested in the LLNA, 5 showed stimulation indices above 3.0. Three of five positive reactions were concomitant with signs of skin irritation indicated by an increase in ear thickness. In the GPMT, all test products were classified as nonsensitizers. In human volunteers, no skin reactions suggestive of sensitization were reported. In conclusion, these results are indicative of the LLNA overestimating sensitization potentials for this category of chemicals. This may in part be due to irritant effects generated by these surfactants. Until suitable nonanimal alternative tests obtain regulatory acceptance, use of other tests, e.g. GPMTs, may in cases be justified. Results such as these need be taken into account when developing nonanimal alternative methods to ensure reliable data sets for method validation purposes.     

Skin sensitization,false positives and false negatives: experience with guinea pig assays

The advent of the local lymph node assay (LLNA), and efforts to develop in vitro alternatives for the identification of skin sensitizing chemicals has focused attention on the issue of false positive and false negative results. In essence, the question becomes ‘what is the gold standard?’ In this context, attention has focused primarily on the LLNA as this is now the preferred assay for skin sensitization testing. However, for many years prior to introduction of the LLNA, the guinea pig maximization test and the occluded patch test of Buehler were the methods of choice. In order to encourage a more informed dialogue about the relative performance, accuracy and applicability of the LLNA and guinea pig tests, we have here considered the extent to which guinea pig methods were themselves subject to false positives and negative results. We describe and discuss here well‐characterized examples of instances where both false negatives (including abietic acid and eugenol) or false positives (including vanillin and sulfanilic acid) have been recorded in guinea pig tests. These and other examples are discussed with particular reference to the fabrication of a gold standard dataset that is required for the validation of in vitro alternatives. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An in vitro human skin test for assessing sensitization potential

Sensitization to chemicals resulting in an allergy is an important health issue. The current gold‐standard method for identification and characterization of skin‐sensitizing chemicals was the mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA). However, for a number of reasons there has been an increasing imperative to develop alternative approaches to hazard identification that do not require the use of animals. Here we describe a human in‐vitro skin explant test for identification of sensitization hazards and the assessment of relative skin sensitizing potency. This method measures histological damage in human skin as a readout of the immune response induced by the test material. Using this approach we have measured responses to 44 chemicals including skin sensitizers, pre/pro‐haptens, respiratory sensitizers, non‐sensitizing chemicals (including skin‐irritants) and previously misclassified compounds. Based on comparisons with the LLNA, the skin explant test gave 95% specificity, 95% sensitivity, 95% concordance with a correlation coefficient of 0.9. The same specificity and sensitivity were achieved for comparison of results with published human sensitization data with a correlation coefficient of 0.91. The test also successfully identified nickel sulphate as a human skin sensitizer, which was misclassified as negative in the LLNA. In addition, sensitizers and non‐sensitizers identified as positive or negative by the skin explant test have induced high/low T cell proliferation and IFNγ production, respectively. Collectively, the data suggests the human in‐vitro skin explant test could provide the basis for a novel approach for characterization of the sensitizing activity as a first step in the risk assessment process. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Strategies for identifying false positive responses in predictive skin sensitization tests

It is important that predictive toxicological test methods are selective for their intended endpoint and that their limitations are understood and acknowledged. The local lymph node assay (LLNA) is a relatively new predictive test for skin sensitization potential that can replace traditional guinea pig tests and offers significant scientific and animal welfare advantages. However, there has been some concern that certain irritant materials may yield false positive results, although it must be emphasized that false positives also occur in guinea pig methods. Consequently, we have examined the performance in the LLNA of a range of skin irritants, from varying chemical classes and covering a range of irritation potency. The results presented here demonstrate clearly that the majority of skin irritants are negative in the LLNA. These results are reviewed in the context of the occurrence of false positive reactions in the guinea pig maximization test and the strategies for dealing with such results are discussed. The need for careful scientific evaluation of the results in all predictive tests for sensitization is thus emphasized. In terms of specificity, the LLNA has been more fully evaluated than other predictive test methods and is at least as accurate. In terms of animal welfare, objectivity, reproducibility and reliability it is superior to other methods. In summary, all predictive skin sensitization test results should be evaluated in a scientifically rigorous manner and the additional data provided herein further support the adoption of the LLNA as a complete replacement for the traditional guinea pig methods.     

Correlation between experimental human and murine skin sensitization induction thresholds

Quantitative risk assessment for skin sensitization is directed towards the determination of levels of exposure to known sensitizing substances that will avoid the induction of contact allergy in humans. A key component of this work is the predictive identification of relative skin sensitizing potency, achieved normally by the measurement of the threshold (the “EC3” value) in the local lymph node assay (LLNA). In an extended series of studies, the accuracy of this murine induction threshold as the predictor of the absence of a sensitizing effect has been verified by conduct of a human repeated insult patch test (HRIPT). Murine and human thresholds for a diverse set of 57 fragrance chemicals spanning approximately four orders of magnitude variation in potency have been compared. The results confirm that there is a useful correlation, with the LLNA EC3 value helping particularly to identify stronger sensitizers. Good correlation (with half an order of magnitude) was seen with three-quarters of the dataset. The analysis also helps to identify potential outlier types of (fragrance) chemistry, exemplified by hexyl and benzyl salicylates (an over-prediction) and trans-2-hexenal (an under-prediction).     

An assessment of the skin sensitisation hazard of a group of polyfunctional silicones using a weight of evidence approach

Discordant results were observed when testing five prototype polyfunctional silicone materials for skin sensitization potential in the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and in the guinea pig maximization test (GPMT). While all five silicone materials were consistently negative in the GPMT, the testing in the LLNA revealed weak to moderate skin sensitisation potential for four of the five test materials. Neither study quality nor other known chemical factors could explain these findings. Further analysis did not provide sufficient evidence for a link between the LLNA responses and the irritancy of the test substances. Only in the case of one of the test materials, the occurrence of an excessive level of irritation could be linked to the positive LLNA result. Considering all existing information including physico–chemical and structure activity and animal data as well as existing human experience from silicone exposures at the workplace or their use in cosmetic products, the weight of evidence suggests that none of the examined silicone materials represents a significant skin sensitization hazard to humans. The suitability of the LLNA appears questionable for this class of materials. In case of any additional data needs for other or new silicone materials, the skin sensitization testing strategy will require careful evaluation and will need to be set up on a case by case basis.     

Novel approach for classifying chemicals according to skin sensitizing potency by non-radioisotopic modification of the local lymph node assay

The murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) is currently recognized as a stand-alone sensitization test for determining the sensitizing potential of chemicals, and it has the advantage of yielding a quantitative endpoint that can be used to predict the sensitization potency of chemicals. The EC3 has been proposed as a parameter for classifying chemicals according to the sensitization potency. We previously developed a non-radioisotopic endpoint for the LLNA based on 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine (BrdU) incorporation (non-RI LLNA), and we are proposing a new procedure to predict the sensitization potency of chemicals based on comparisons with known human contact allergens. Nine chemicals (i.e. diphencyclopropenone, p-phenylenediamine, glutaraldehyde, cinnamicaldehyde, citral, eugenol, isopropyl myristate, propyleneglycol and hexane) categorized as human contact allergen classes 1-5 were tested by the non-RI LLNA with the following reference allergens: 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB) as a class 1 human contact allergen, isoeugenol as a class 2 human contact allergen and alpha-hexylcinnamic aldehyde (HCA) as a class 3 human contact allergen. Consequently, nine test chemicals were almost assigned to their correct allergen class. The results suggested that the new procedure for non-RI LLNA can provide correct sensitization potency data. Sensitization potency data are useful for evaluating the sensitization risk to humans of exposure to new chemical products. Accordingly, this approach would be an effective modification of LLNA with regard to its experimental design. Moreover, this procedure can be applied also to the standard LLNA with radioisotopes and to other modifications of the LLNA.     

Classification of contact allergens according to potency: proposals

It is clear that contact allergens vary substantially with regard to the relative potency with which they are able to induce skin sensitisation. Considerations of potency will in the future become a significant factor in the classification of skin sensitising chemicals. It is therefore appropriate to establish what is known of potency and thresholds in the induction of skin sensitisation and the elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis, and to identify approaches that might be available for assessment of relative potency for the purposes of categorising chemical allergens. This paper was prepared by an ECETOC (European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology) Task Force that had the objective of recommending approaches for the measurement of potency and definition of thresholds for both the induction and elicitation of contact sensitisation. The deliberations recorded here build upon recommendations made previously by an ECETOC Task Force that considered the conduct of standard skin sensitisation test methods for the purposes of hazard identification and risk assessment (ECETOC, Monograph No. 29, Brussels, 2000). The emphasis in this present paper is also on standard and accepted methods for the assessment of skin sensitisation, and for which OECD guidelines are available: the local lymph node assay (LLNA), the guinea pig maximisation test and the occluded patch test of Buehler. For various reasons, discussed in detail herein, attention focused primarily upon consideration of categorisation of chemical allergens and the identification of thresholds with respect to the induction of skin sensitisation, rather than the elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis. It is concluded that although the LLNA is the method of choice for the determination of skin sensitisation potency for the purposes of categorisation, if data are already available from appropriate guinea pig tests then their judicious interpretation may provide information of value in determinations of potency and categorisation. Included here are detailed and specific recommendations for how best the results of the three test methods considered can be used for the categorisation of chemical allergens as a function of skin sensitisation potency.     

Inter‐laboratory validation of the modified murine local lymph node assay based on 5‐bromo‐2′‐deoxyuridine incorporation

The murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) is a well‐established alternative to the guinea pig maximization test (GPMT) or Buehler test (BT) for the assessment of the skin sensitizing ability of a drug, cosmetic material, pesticide or industrial chemical. Instead of radioisotope using in this method, Takeyoshi M. et al. ( 2001 ) has developed a modified LLNA based on the 5‐bromo‐2′‐deoxyuridine (BrdU) incorporation (LLNA:BrdU‐ELISA). The LLNA:BrdU‐ELISA is practically identical to the LLNA methodology excluding the use of BrdU, for which a single intraperitoneal injection of BrdU is made on day 4, and colorimetric detection of cell turnover. We conducted the validation study to evaluate the reliability and relevance of LLNA:BrdU‐ELISA. The experiment involved 7 laboratories, wherein 10 chemicals were examined under blinded conditions. In this study, 3 chemicals were examined in all laboratories and the remaining 7 were examined in 3 laboratories. The data were expressed as the BrdU incorporation using an ELISA method for each group, and the stimulation index (SI) for each chemical‐treated group was determined as the increase in the BrdU incorporation relative to the concurrent vehicle control group. An SI of 2 was set as the cut‐off value for exhibiting skin sensitization activity. The results obtained in the experiments conducted for all 10 chemicals were sufficiently consistent with small variations in their SI values. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of LLNA:BrdU‐ELISA against those of GPMT/BT were 7/7 (100%), 3/3 (100%), and 10/10 (100%), respectively. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Skin sensitization in chemical risk assessment: report of a WHO/IPCS international workshop focusing on dose-response assessment

An international workshop was held in 2006 to evaluate experimental techniques for hazard identification and hazard characterization of sensitizing agents in terms of their ability to produce data, including dose-response information, to inform risk assessment. Human testing to identify skin sensitizers is discouraged for ethical reasons. Animal-free alternatives, such as quantitative structure-activity relationships and in vitro testing approaches, have not been sufficiently developed for such application. Guinea pig tests do not generally include dose-response assessment and are therefore not designed for the assessment of potency, defined as the relative ability of a chemical to induce sensitization in a previously naive individual. In contrast, the mouse local lymph node assay does include dose-response assessment and is appropriate for this purpose. Epidemiological evidence can be used only under certain circumstances for the evaluation of the sensitizing potency of chemicals, as it reflects degree of exposure as well as intrinsic potency. Nevertheless, human diagnostic patch test data and quantitative elicitation data have provided very important information in reducing allergic contact dermatitis risk and sensitization in the general population. It is therefore recommended that clinical data, particularly dose-response data derived from sensitized patients, be included in risk assessment.     

ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. Conclusions and recommendations of an independent scientific peer review panel.

The validation status of the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA), a method for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemicals, was evaluated by an independent peer review panel (Panel) convened by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM). The LLNA measures lymphocyte proliferation using incorporation of radioactive thymidine or iododeoxyuridine into cells of the draining lymph nodes of mice topically exposed to a test article. The Panel concluded that the assay performed as well as currently accepted guinea pig methods [guinea pig maximization test (GPMT)/Buehler assay (BA)] for the hazard identification of strong to moderate chemical sensitizing agents, but that it might not correctly identify all weak sensitizers or metals (potential false negative response) or all strong irritants (potential false positive response). The Panel concluded also that the LLNA involves less pain and distress than conventional guinea pig methods. The Panel unanimously recommended the LLNA as a stand-alone alternative for contact sensitization hazard assessment, provided that certain protocol modifications were made. These included collection of individual, rather than pooled, animal response data; the inclusion of a concurrent positive control; and consideration of dose-response information and statistical analyses. A standardized LLNA protocol is provided.     

A new in vitro method for identifying chemical sensitizers combining peptide binding with ARE/EpRE-mediated gene expression in human skin cells

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a significant safety concern for developers of cosmetic, personal care, chemical, pharmaceutical, and medical device products. The guinea pig maximization test (GMPT) and the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) are accepted methods for determining chemical sensitization. Recent legislative initiatives in Europe require the development of new in vitro alternatives to animal tests for chemical sensitization. The aim of this project was to develop an in vitro screening method that uses a human skin cell line (HaCaT), chemical reactivity, and gene expression profiling to identify positive and negative responses, to place chemicals into potency categories of extreme/strong (ES), moderate (M), weak (W), and nonsensitizers (N), and to provide an estimate of corresponding LLNA values. The method and processing algorithm were developed from a training set of 39 chemicals possessing a wide range of sensitization potencies. Three cationic metals, chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), and silver (Ag), were also evaluated in this model. Chemical reactivity was determined by measuring glutathione (GSH) depletion in a cell free matrix. Three signaling pathways (Keap1/Nrf?2/ARE/EpRE, ARNT/AhR/XRE, and Nrf1/MTF/MRE) that are known to be activated by sensitizing agents were monitored by measuring the relative abundance of 11 genes whose expression is controlled by one of these 3 pathways. Final exposure concentrations were based on toxicity and solubility. A range-finding experiment was conducted with each compound to determine cytotoxicity and solubility. Six exposure concentrations (0.1 to 2,500?μM) and an exposure time of 24 hours were used in the final experiments. Glutathione depletion alone did not provide the accuracy necessary to differentiate potency categories. However, chemical reactivity combined with gene expression profiles significantly improved the in vitro predictions. A predicted toxicity index (PTI) was determined for each test chemical. A comparison of LLNA values with PTI values revealed an inverse relationship. The large variation in LLNA data for compounds in the same potency category makes direct extrapolation from PTI to LLNA difficult. To challenge the system, 58 additional compounds were submitted in a blinded manner. Compounds placed into ES and M categories were considered positive, whereas compounds classified as W or N were considered negative. Accuracy was approximately 84%, with a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 92%. The model correctly identified 2 of 3 cationic metals as positive. In conclusion, the method described here demonstrates a valuable in vitro method for identifying chemicals and metals that induce skin sensitization.     

A comparison of statistical approaches to the derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses.

Effective risk assessment and management of allergic contact dermatitis require three key factors: adequate hazard identification, measurement of the relative potency of identified hazards and an understanding of the nature, extent and duration of exposure. Suitable methods for hazard identification, such as the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and the guinea-pig maximization test, are well established and conditions of human exposure normally can be well anticipated. Thus, the need is for a robust and quantitative method for the estimation of relative skin sensitizing potency. One possible approach is via the analysis of LLNA dose-response data. In the LLNA, contact allergens are defined currently as those chemicals that cause a threefold or greater increase in lymph node cell proliferative activity compared with concurrent vehicle-treated controls. It is possible to estimate the concentration of a sensitizer required to generate a threefold stimulation of proliferation in draining lymph nodes; such a concentration is known as the EC3 value. Using a variety of statistical approaches to derive EC3 values from LLNA dose-response data for 10 chemicals, it has been demonstrated that simple linear interpolation between the values either side of the threefold stimulation index provides a robust assessment of the EC3 value without the need for recourse to more sophisticated statistical techniques. Provided that the appropriate concentrations of test chemical have been selected, EC3 values obtained in this way are reproducible both within and between laboratories and form the basis for examination of the utility of this approach for the estimation of relative skin sensitizing potency.