Kandárová Helena, Liebsch Manfred, Genschow Elke, Gerner Ingrid, Traue Dieter, Slawik Birgitta, Spielmann Horst
Centre for Documentation and Evaluation of Alternative Methods to Animal Experiments (ZEBET) at the BfR (Federal Institute for Risk Assessment), D-12277 Berlin, Germany.
ALTEX. 2004;21(3):107-14.
An ECVAM-funded prevalidation study (PV) was conducted during 1999 and 2000 to identify in vitro tests capable of reliably distinguishing between skin irritants (I) and non-irritants (NI) according to European Union risk phrases ("R38" or no classification). The tests evaluated were EpiDerm, EPISKIN, PREDISKIN, the non-perfused pig ear method, and the mouse skin integrity function test (SIFT). Whereas reproducibility of the two human skin model tests and SIFT was acceptable, none of the methods was deemed ready to enter a formal validation study due to their low predictivity. The ECVAM Skin Irritation Task Force therefore suggested improvements of protocols and prediction models for these tests. Furthermore, it was agreed that experience gained with the two human-skin models be shared, and a common protocol should be developed for EpiDerm and EPISKIN (Zuang et al., 2002). When we applied an improved EPISKIN protocol (Portes et al., 2002) to the EpiDerm model, an acceptable specificity (80%) was achieved, whereas the sensitivity (60%) was far too low. In 2003, the EPISKIN protocol was further refined by extension of the post-incubation period following chemical exposure. In the current study, we evaluated this EPISKIN refinement by applying it to EpiDerm. In addition, we developed technical improvements for the application of the test chemicals and rinsing procedure, which reduced the variability of results and increased the percentage of correct predictions. A set of twenty non-coded reference substances from the ECVAM prevalidation study phase III (Fentem et al., 2001) was tested with the final protocol in three independent runs. Both high sensitivity (80%) and high specificity (78%) were achieved, and the statistical probability of correct classifications was high, so that the test is now regarded ready for formal validation.
1999年至2000年期间开展了一项由欧洲替代方法验证中心(ECVAM)资助的预验证研究(PV),目的是根据欧盟风险术语(“R38”或无分类)确定能够可靠区分皮肤刺激物(I)和非刺激物(NI)的体外试验。所评估的试验包括EpiDerm、EPISKIN、PREDISKIN、非灌注猪耳方法以及小鼠皮肤完整性功能试验(SIFT)。虽然两个人类皮肤模型试验和SIFT的可重复性是可以接受的,但由于预测性较低,没有一种方法被认为可以进入正式验证研究。因此,ECVAM皮肤刺激问题特别工作组建议改进这些试验的方案和预测模型。此外,大家一致认为应分享在两个人类皮肤模型试验中获得的经验,并应为EpiDerm和EPISKIN制定通用方案(Zuang等人,2002年)。当我们将改进后的EPISKIN方案(Portes等人,2002年)应用于EpiDerm模型时,获得了可接受的特异性(80%),而敏感性(60%)则过低。2003年,通过延长化学物质暴露后的孵育期,进一步完善了EPISKIN方案。在本研究中,我们通过将其应用于EpiDerm来评估这种对EPISKIN方案的改进。此外,我们还对受试化学品的应用和冲洗程序进行了技术改进,这降低了结果的变异性并提高了正确预测的百分比。使用最终方案对来自ECVAM预验证研究第三阶段(Fentem等人,2001年)的一组20种未编码参考物质进行了三次独立试验。实现了高敏感性(80%)和高特异性(78%),并且正确分类的统计概率很高,因此现在认为该试验已准备好进行正式验证。