首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
检索        


Performance standards and alternative assays: Practical insights from skin sensitization
Authors:Susanne N Kolle  David A Basketter  Silvia Casati  William S Stokes  Judy Strickland  Bennard van Ravenzwaay  Hans-Werner Vohr  Robert Landsiedel
Institution:1. BASF SE, Experimental Toxicology and Ecology, Ludwigshafen, Germany;2. DABMEB Consultancy Ltd., Sharnbrook, United Kingdom;3. EURL ECVAM, JRC Ispra, Italy;4. National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA;5. Integrated Laboratory Systems, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, USA;6. Bayer HealthCare AG, Bayer Pharma, Wuppertal, Germany;1. DuPont Haskell Global Centers for Health and Environmental Sciences, 1090 Elkton Road, Newark, DE 19711, USA;2. Ted Simon LLC, 4184 Johnston Road, Winston, GA 30187, USA;3. ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc., 1545 Route 22 East Annandale, NJ 08801, USA;4. The Dow Chemical Company, Toxicology & Environmental Research & Consulting, 1803 Building Washington Street, Midland, MI 48674, USA;5. Dow Corning, 2200 W. Salzburg Road, P.O. Box 994, Midland, MI 48686-0994, USA;6. Regulatory and Technical Affairs Department, American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington, DC 20002, USA;1. Chemical Management Center, National Institute of Technology and Evaluation, 2-49-10 Nishihara, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 151-0066, Japan;2. Biological Safety Research Center, National Institute of Health Sciences, 1-18-1 Kamiyoga, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 158-8501, Japan;3. Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tohoku University, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8578, Japan;4. Laboratory of Mathematical Chemistry, University “Prof. Assen Zlatarov” Bourgas, 1 “Yakimov” Str. 8010 Bourgas, Bulgaria;5. Biosafety Research Center, 582-2 Shioshinden, Iwata, Shizuoka 437-1213, Japan;1. Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, P.O. Box 210, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden;2. “Mario Negri” Institute for Pharmacological Research, Via Giuseppe La Masa 19, 20156 Milano, Italy;3. National Food Agency, P.O. Box 622, 75126 Uppsala, Sweden;4. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Via Carlo Magno 1/A, 431 26 Parma, Italy;1. IRCCS-Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, 20156, Via La Masa 19, Milano, Italy;2. Faculty of Chemistry, Laboratory of Environmental Chemometrics, University of Gdansk, ul. Sobieskiego 18/19, Gdansk 80-952, Poland;3. Interdisciplinary Nanotoxicity Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Jackson State University, 1325 Lynch St, Jackson, MS 39217-0510, USA;4. Interdisciplinary Nanotoxicity Center, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Jackson State University, 1400 J. R. Lynch Street, PO Box 17910, Jackson, MS 39217, USA;1. DuPont Haskell Global Centers for Health and Environmental Sciences, 1090 Elkton Road, Newark, DE 19711, USA;2. School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK;3. SEAC, Unilever Colworth, Sharnbrook, Bedford MK44 1LQ, UK;4. Central Product Safety Department, The Procter and Gamble Company, Miami Valley Innovation Center, 11810 E. Miami River Road, Cincinnati, OH 45040, USA;5. CEFIC – The European Chemical Industry Council, 4 Avenue E. Van Nieuwenhuyse, B-1160 Brussels, Belgium
Abstract:To encourage the development and validation of alternative toxicity test methods, the effort required for validation of test methods proposed for regulatory purposes should be minimized. Performance standards (PS) facilitate efficient validation by requiring limited testing. Based on the validated method, PS define accuracy and reliability values that must be met by the new similar test method. The OECD adopted internationally harmonized PS for evaluating new endpoint versions of the local lymph node assay (LLNA). However, in the process of evaluating a lymph node cell count alternative (LNCC), simultaneous conduct of the regulatory LLNA showed that this standard test may not always perform in perfect accord with its own PS. The LNCC results were similar to the concurrent LLNA. Discrepancies between PS, LLNA and LNCC were largely associated with “borderline” substances and the variability of both endpoints. Two key lessons were learned: firstly, the understandable focus on substances close to the hazard classification borderline are more likely to emphasise issues of biological variability, which should be taken into account during the evaluation of results; secondly, variability in the results for the standard assay should be considered when selecting reference chemicals for PS.
Keywords:
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号