Mizumachi Hideyuki, LeBaron Matthew J, Settivari Raja S, Miyazawa Masaaki, Marty Mary Sue, Sakaguchi Hitoshi
R&D, Safety Science Research, Kao Corporation, Tochigi, Japan.
Toxicology & Environmental Research & Consulting, Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan, USA.
J Appl Toxicol. 2021 Jun;41(6):915-927. doi: 10.1002/jat.4076. Epub 2020 Oct 30.
The regulatory community is transitioning to the use of nonanimal methods for dermal sensitization assessments; however, some in vitro assays have limitations in their domain of applicability depending on the properties of chemicals being tested. This study explored the utility of epidermal sensitization assay (EpiSensA) to evaluate the sensitization potential of complex and/or "difficult to test" chemicals. Assay performance was evaluated by testing a set of 20 test chemicals including 10 methacrylate esters, 5 silicone-based compounds, 3 crop protection formulations, and 2 surfactant mixtures; each had prior in vivo data plus some in silico and in vitro data. Using the weight of evidence (WoE) assessments by REACH Lead Registrants, 14 of these chemicals were sensitizers and, six were nonsensitizers based on in vivo studies (local lymph node assay [LLNA] and/or guinea pig studies). The EpiSensA correctly predicted 16/20 materials with three test materials as false positive and one silane as false negative. This silane, classified as weak sensitizer via LLNA, also gave a "false negative" result in the KeratinoSens™ assay. Overall, consistent with prior evaluations, the EpiSensA demonstrated an accuracy level of 80% relative to available in vivo WoE assessments. In addition, potency classification based on the concentration showing positive marker gene expression of EpiSensA was performed. The EpiSensA correctly predicted the potency for all seven sensitizing methacrylates classified as weak potency via LLNA (EC3 ≥ 10%). In summary, EpiSensA could identify dermal sensitization potential of these test substances and mixtures, and continues to show promise as an in vitro alternative method for dermal sensitization.
监管机构正在转向使用非动物方法进行皮肤致敏性评估;然而,一些体外试验根据所测试化学品的性质,在其适用范围内存在局限性。本研究探讨了表皮致敏试验(EpiSensA)评估复杂和/或“难测试”化学品致敏潜力的效用。通过测试一组20种测试化学品来评估试验性能,其中包括10种甲基丙烯酸酯、5种硅基化合物、3种作物保护配方和2种表面活性剂混合物;每种化学品都有先前的体内数据以及一些计算机模拟和体外数据。根据REACH牵头注册人的证据权重(WoE)评估,其中14种化学品为致敏剂,6种根据体内研究(局部淋巴结试验[LLNA]和/或豚鼠研究)为非致敏剂。EpiSensA正确预测了20种材料中的16种,3种测试材料为假阳性,1种硅烷为假阴性。这种硅烷通过LLNA分类为弱致敏剂,在KeratinoSens™试验中也给出了“假阴性”结果。总体而言,与先前的评估一致,相对于可用的体内WoE评估,EpiSensA的准确率为80%。此外,还基于显示EpiSensA阳性标记基因表达的浓度进行了效力分类。EpiSensA正确预测了所有7种通过LLNA分类为弱效力的致敏甲基丙烯酸酯的效力(EC3≥10%)。总之,EpiSensA可以识别这些测试物质和混合物的皮肤致敏潜力,并继续显示出作为皮肤致敏体外替代方法的前景。