Kimber I, Basketter D A, Butler M, Gamer A, Garrigue J-L, Gerberick G F, Newsome C, Steiling W, Vohr H-W
Syngenta Central Toxicology Laboratory, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK10 4TJ, UK.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2003 Dec;41(12):1799-809. doi: 10.1016/s0278-6915(03)00223-0.
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.
显然,接触性变应原在诱导皮肤致敏的相对效力方面差异很大。效力考量在未来将成为皮肤致敏化学物质分类的一个重要因素。因此,确定在皮肤致敏诱导和过敏性接触性皮炎激发方面已知的效力和阈值,并确定可用于评估相对效力以对化学变应原进行分类的方法是恰当的。本文由欧洲生态毒理学和毒理学中心(ECETOC)的一个特别工作组编写,其目的是推荐测量效力的方法以及确定接触致敏诱导和激发的阈值。这里记录的审议基于ECETOC一个特别工作组先前提出的建议,该工作组考虑了用于危害识别和风险评估的标准皮肤致敏试验方法(ECETOC,第29号专论,布鲁塞尔,2000年)。本文的重点还在于评估皮肤致敏的标准和公认方法,并且有经合组织指南可供参考:局部淋巴结试验(LLNA)、豚鼠最大化试验和比尤勒封闭斑贴试验。出于本文详细讨论的各种原因,注意力主要集中在化学变应原的分类考量以及皮肤致敏诱导方面阈值的确定,而非过敏性接触性皮炎的激发。得出的结论是,尽管LLNA是用于分类目的确定皮肤致敏效力的首选方法,但如果已经从适当的豚鼠试验中获得了数据,那么对其进行明智的解读可能会在效力确定和分类中提供有价值的信息。这里包括了关于如何最好地将所考虑的三种试验方法的结果用于根据皮肤致敏效力对化学变应原进行分类的详细和具体建议。