Test battery with the human cell line activation test,direct peptide reactivity assay and DEREK based on a 139 chemical data set for predicting skin sensitizing potential and potency of chemicals

To develop a testing strategy incorporating the human cell line activation test (h‐CLAT), direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) and DEREK, we created an expanded data set of 139 chemicals (102 sensitizers and 37 non‐sensitizers) by combining the existing data set of 101 chemicals through the collaborative projects of Japan Cosmetic Industry Association. Of the additional 38 chemicals, 15 chemicals with relatively low water solubility (log Kow > 3.5) were selected to clarify the limitation of testing strategies regarding the lipophilic chemicals. Predictivities of the h‐CLAT, DPRA and DEREK, and the combinations thereof were evaluated by comparison to results of the local lymph node assay. When evaluating 139 chemicals using combinations of three methods based on integrated testing strategy (ITS) concept (ITS‐based test battery) and a sequential testing strategy (STS) weighing the predictive performance of the h‐CLAT and DPRA, overall similar predictivities were found as before on the 101 chemical data set. An analysis of false negative chemicals suggested a major limitation of our strategies was the testing of low water‐soluble chemicals. When excluded the negative results for chemicals with log Kow > 3.5, the sensitivity and accuracy of ITS improved to 97% (91 of 94 chemicals) and 89% (114 of 128). Likewise, the sensitivity and accuracy of STS to 98% (92 of 94) and 85% (111 of 129). Moreover, the ITS and STS also showed good correlation with local lymph node assay on three potency classifications, yielding accuracies of 74% (ITS) and 73% (STS). Thus, the inclusion of log Kow in analysis could give both strategies a higher predictive performance. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Non‐animal assessment of skin sensitization hazard: Is an integrated testing strategy needed,and if so what should be integrated?

There is an expectation that to meet regulatory requirements, and avoid or minimize animal testing, integrated approaches to testing and assessment will be needed that rely on assays representing key events (KEs) in the skin sensitization adverse outcome pathway. Three non‐animal assays have been formally validated and regulatory adopted: the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), the KeratinoSens? assay and the human cell line activation test (h‐CLAT). There have been many efforts to develop integrated approaches to testing and assessment with the “two out of three” approach attracting much attention. Here a set of 271 chemicals with mouse, human and non‐animal sensitization test data was evaluated to compare the predictive performances of the three individual non‐animal assays, their binary combinations and the “two out of three” approach in predicting skin sensitization potential. The most predictive approach was to use both the DPRA and h‐CLAT as follows: (1) perform DPRA – if positive, classify as sensitizing, and (2) if negative, perform h‐CLAT – a positive outcome denotes a sensitizer, a negative, a non‐sensitizer. With this approach, 85% (local lymph node assay) and 93% (human) of non‐sensitizer predictions were correct, whereas the “two out of three” approach had 69% (local lymph node assay) and 79% (human) of non‐sensitizer predictions correct. The findings are consistent with the argument, supported by published quantitative mechanistic models that only the first KE needs to be modeled. All three assays model this KE to an extent. The value of using more than one assay depends on how the different assays compensate for each other's technical limitations. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Prediction of skin sensitization potency using machine learning approaches

The replacement of animal use in testing for regulatory classification of skin sensitizers is a priority for US federal agencies that use data from such testing. Machine learning models that classify substances as sensitizers or non‐sensitizers without using animal data have been developed and evaluated. Because some regulatory agencies require that sensitizers be further classified into potency categories, we developed statistical models to predict skin sensitization potency for murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and human outcomes. Input variables for our models included six physicochemical properties and data from three non‐animal test methods: direct peptide reactivity assay; human cell line activation test; and KeratinoSens™ assay. Models were built to predict three potency categories using four machine learning approaches and were validated using external test sets and leave‐one‐out cross‐validation. A one‐tiered strategy modeled all three categories of response together while a two‐tiered strategy modeled sensitizer/non‐sensitizer responses and then classified the sensitizers as strong or weak sensitizers. The two‐tiered model using the support vector machine with all assay and physicochemical data inputs provided the best performance, yielding accuracy of 88% for prediction of LLNA outcomes (120 substances) and 81% for prediction of human test outcomes (87 substances). The best one‐tiered model predicted LLNA outcomes with 78% accuracy and human outcomes with 75% accuracy. By comparison, the LLNA predicts human potency categories with 69% accuracy (60 of 87 substances correctly categorized). These results suggest that computational models using non‐animal methods may provide valuable information for assessing skin sensitization potency. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A novel in chemico method to detect skin sensitizers in highly diluted reaction conditions

The direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) is a simple and versatile alternative method for the evaluation of skin sensitization that involves the reaction of test chemicals with two peptides. However, this method requires concentrated solutions of test chemicals, and hydrophobic substances may not dissolve at the concentrations required. Furthermore, hydrophobic test chemicals may precipitate when added to the reaction solution. We previously established a high‐sensitivity method, the amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA). This method uses novel cysteine (NAC) and novel lysine derivatives (NAL), which were synthesized by introducing a naphthalene ring to the amine group of cysteine and lysine residues. In this study, we modified the ADRA method by reducing the concentration of the test chemicals 100‐fold. We investigated the accuracy of skin sensitization predictions made using the modified method, which was designated the ADRA‐dilutional method (ADRA‐DM). The predictive accuracy of the ADRA‐DM for skin sensitization was 90% for 82 test chemicals which were also evaluated via the ADRA, and the predictive accuracy in the ADRA‐DM was higher than that in the ADRA and DPRA. Furthermore, no precipitation of test compounds was observed at the initiation of the ADRA‐DM reaction. These results show that the ADRA‐DM allowed the use of test chemicals at concentrations two orders of magnitude lower than that possible with the ADRA. In addition, ADRA‐DM does not have the restrictions on test compound solubility that were a major problem with the DPRA. Therefore, the ADRA‐DM is a versatile and useful method. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Intralaboratory validation of four in vitro assays for the prediction of the skin sensitizing potential of chemicals

Allergic contact dermatitis is induced by repeated skin contact with an allergen. Assessment of the skin sensitizing potential of chemicals, agrochemicals, and especially cosmetic ingredients is currently performed with the use of animals. Animal welfare and EU legislation demand animal-free alternatives reflected in a testing and marketing ban for cosmetic ingredients beginning in 2013. The underlying mechanisms of induction and elicitation of skin sensitization are complex and a chemical needs to comply several properties being skin sensitizing. To account for the multitude of events in the induction of skin sensitization an in vitro test system will consist of a battery of various tests.Currently, we performed intralaboratory validations of four assays addressing three different events during induction of skin sensitization. (1) The Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) according to Gerberick and co-workers (Gerberick et al., 2004) using synthetic peptides and HPLC analysis. (2) Two dendritic cell activation assays based on the dendritic cell like cell lines U-937 and THP-1 and flow cytometric detection of the maturation markers CD54 and/or CD86 ( [Ashikaga et al., 2006], [Python et al., 2007] and [Sakaguchi et al., 2006]). (3) Antioxidant response element (ARE)-dependent gene activity in a HaCaT reporter gene cell line (Emter et al., 2010). We present the results of our intralaboratory validation of these assays with 23 substances of known sensitizing potential. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the individual tests were obtained by comparison to human epidemiological data as well as to data from animal tests such as the local lymph node assay.     

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.     

Cause of and countermeasures for oxidation of the cysteine‐derived reagent used in the amino acid derivative reactivity assay

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) is an in chemico alternative to animal testing for skin sensitization that solves certain problems found in the use of the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA). During a recent validation study conducted at multiple laboratories as part of the process to include ADRA in an existing OECD test guideline, one of the nucleophilic reagents used in ADRA—N‐(2‐(1‐naphthyl)acetyl)‐l ‐cysteine (NAC)—was found to be susceptible to oxidation in much the same manner that the cysteine peptide used in DPRA was. Owing to this, we undertook a study to clarify the cause of the promotion of NAC oxidation. In general, cysteine and other chemicals that have thiol groups are known to oxidize in the presence of even minute quantities of metal ions. When metal ions were added to the ADRA reaction solution, Cu²⁺ promoted NAC oxidation significantly. When 0.25 μm of EDTA was added in the presence of Cu²⁺, NAC oxidation was suppressed. Based on this, we predicted that the addition of EDTA to the NAC stock solution would suppress NAC oxidation. Next, we tested 82 chemicals used in developing ADRA to determine whether EDTA affects ADRA's ability to predict sensitization. The results showed that the addition of EDTA has virtually no effect on the reactivity of NAC with a test chemical, yielding an accuracy of 87% for predictions of skin sensitization, which was roughly the same as ADRA.     

Putting the parts together: Combining in vitro methods to test for skin sensitizing potentials

Allergic contact dermatitis is a common skin disease and is elicited by repeated skin contact with an allergen. In the regulatory context, currently only data from animal experiments are acceptable to assess the skin sensitizing potential of substances. Animal welfare and EU Cosmetic Directive/Regulation call for the implementation of animal-free alternatives for safety assessments. The mechanisms that trigger skin sensitization are complex and various steps are involved. Therefore, a single in vitro method may not be able to accurately assess this endpoint. Non-animal methods are being developed and validated and can be used for testing strategies that ensure a reliable prediction of skin sensitization potentials. In this study, the predictivities of four in vitro assays, one in chemico and one in silico method addressing three different steps in the development of skin sensitization were assessed using 54 test substances of known sensitizing potential. The predictivity of single tests and combinations of these assays were compared. These data were used to develop an in vitro testing scheme and prediction model for the detection of skin sensitizers based on protein reactivity, activation of the Keap-1/Nrf2 signaling pathway and dendritic cell activation.     

Guiding principles for the implementation of non-animal safety assessment approaches for cosmetics: Skin sensitisation

Characterisation of skin sensitisation potential is a key endpoint for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients especially when significant dermal exposure to an ingredient is expected. At present the mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA) remains the ‘gold standard’ test method for this purpose however non-animal test methods are under development that aim to replace the need for new animal test data. COLIPA (the European Cosmetics Association) funds an extensive programme of skin sensitisation research, method development and method evaluation and helped coordinate the early evaluation of the three test methods currently undergoing pre-validation. In May 2010, a COLIPA scientific meeting was held to analyse to what extent skin sensitisation safety assessments for cosmetic ingredients can be made in the absence of animal data. In order to propose guiding principles for the application and further development of non-animal safety assessment strategies it was evaluated how and when non-animal test methods, predictions based on physico-chemical properties (including in silico tools), threshold concepts and weight-of-evidence based hazard characterisation could be used to enable safety decisions. Generation and assessment of potency information from alternative tools which at present is predominantly derived from the LLNA is considered the future key research area.