Fragrances S&T, Ingredients Research, Givaudan Schweiz AG, Kemptthal, Switzerland.
National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods, RTP, NC, USA.
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2023 Feb;138:105333. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2023.105333. Epub 2023 Jan 3.
Meaningful and accurate reference data are crucial for the validation of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in toxicology. For skin sensitization, multiple reference datasets are available including human patch test data, guinea pig data and data from the mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA). When assessed against the LLNA, a reduced sensitivity has been reported for in vitro and in chemico assays for lipophilic chemicals with a LogP ≥3.5, resulting in reliability restrictions within the h-CLAT OECD test guideline. Here we address the question of whether LLNA data are an appropriate reference for chemicals in this physicochemical range. Analysis of LLNA vs human reference data indicates that the false-discovery rate of the LLNA is significantly higher for chemicals with LogP ≥3.5. We present a mechanistic hypothesis whereby irritation caused by testing lipophilic chemicals at high test doses leads to unspecific cell proliferation. The accompanying analysis indicates that for lipophilic chemicals with negative calls in in vitro and in chemico assays, resorting to the LLNA is not necessarily a better option. These results indicate that the validation of NAMs in this particular LogP range should be based on a more holistic evaluation of the reference data and not solely upon LLNA data.
有意义且准确的参考数据对于毒理学中新方法的验证至关重要。对于皮肤致敏,有多种参考数据集可用,包括人体斑贴试验数据、豚鼠数据和小鼠局部淋巴结试验(LLNA)的数据。当与 LLNA 进行评估时,报告称对于具有 LogP≥3.5 的亲脂性化学物质,体外和化学计算的检测方法的敏感性降低,这导致 OECD 皮肤致敏 h-CLAT 测试指南中的可靠性限制。在这里,我们提出了一个问题,即 LLNA 数据是否适用于该理化范围内的化学物质。对 LLNA 与人体参考数据的分析表明,对于 LogP≥3.5 的化学物质,LLNA 的错误发现率显著更高。我们提出了一个机制假设,即在高测试剂量下测试亲脂性化学物质会引起刺激性,从而导致非特异性细胞增殖。伴随的分析表明,对于在体外和化学计算检测中呈阴性的亲脂性化学物质,诉诸 LLNA 不一定是更好的选择。这些结果表明,在特定 LogP 范围内验证 NAMs 应该基于对参考数据的更全面评估,而不仅仅是基于 LLNA 数据。