Utility of historical vehicle-control data in the interpretation of the local lymph node assay

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 37-41

  Basketter, D A ^a   Gilmour, N J ^a   Briggs, D ^a   Ullmann, L G ^b   Gerberick, G F ^c   Ryan, C A ^c   Dearman, R J ^d   Kimber, I ^d  

^a UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^b RCC   (Switzerland)

^c PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

^d JEALOTT S HILL INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Allergic contact dermatitis; Local lymph node assay; Regulatory toxicology; Skin sensitization; Vehicle control data

Indexed keywords

ACETONE; OLIVE OIL;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HISTORY; LABORATORY; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN SENSITIZATION;

ANIMALS; CYTOTOXICITY TESTS, IMMUNOLOGIC; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; EUROPE; LYMPH NODES; MICE; MICE, INBRED CBA; PYRUVATES; QUALITY CONTROL; REFERENCE STANDARDS; UNITED STATES; VEHICLES;

EID: 0347383882     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0105-1873.2003.00162.x     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. OECD. Guidelines for testing of chemicals. Guideline no. 429 skin sensitization: the local lymph node assay. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris 2002.
2. NIH. The murine local lymph node assay: a test method for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemicals/compounds. NIH no. 99-494 1999.
3. Balls M, Hellsten E. Statement on the validity of the local lymph node assay for skin sensitization testing. ECVAM Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra, Italy, 21 March. Alternatives Lab Anim 2000: 28: 366-367.
4. Gerberick G F, Ryan C A, Kimber I, Dearman R J, Lea L J, Basketter D A. Local lymph node assay validation assessment for regulatory purposes. Am J Contact Dermat 2000: 11: 3-18.
5. Kimber I, Basketter D A. The murine local lymph node assay; collaborative studies and new directions: a commentary. Food Chem Toxicol 1992: 30: 165-169.
6. Kimber I, Dearman R J, Basketter D A, Ryan C A, Gerberick G F. The local lymph node assay: past, present and future. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 47: 315-328.
7. Dearman R J, Wright Z M, Basketter D A, Ryan C A, Gerberick G F, Kimber I. The suitability of hexyl cinnamic aldehyde as a calibrant for the using local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44: 357-361.
8. Kimber I, Hilton J, Botham P A et al. The murine local lymph node assay. Results of an interlaboratory trial. Toxicol Lett 1991: 55: 203-213.
9. Kimber I, Hilton J, Dearman R J et al. An international evaluation of the local lymph node assay and comparison of modified procedures. Toxicology 1995: 103: 63-73.
10. Loveless S E, Ladics G S, Gerberick G F et al. Further evaluation of the local lymph node assay in the final phase of an international collaborative trial. Toxicology 1996: 108: 141-152.
11. Basketter D A, Lea L J, Cooper K et al. A comparison of statistical approaches to derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses. J Appl Toxicol 1999: 19: 261-266.
12. Basketter D A, Blaikie L, Dearman R J et al. Use of the local lymph node assay for the estimation of relative contact allergenic potency. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 344-348.
13. Basketter D A, Gerberick G F, Kimber I. Measurement of allergenic potency using the local lymph node assay. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2001: 22: 264-265.
14. Gerberick G F, Robinson M K, Ryan C A et al. Contact allergenic potency: correlation of human and local lymph node assay data. Am J Contact Dermat 2001: 12: 156-161.
15. Ryan C A, Gerberick G F, Cruse L W et al. Activity of human contact allergens in the murine local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 95-102.
16. Warbrick E V, Dearman R J, Lea L J, Basketter D A, Kimber I. Local lymph node assay responses to paraphenylenediamine: intra- and inter-laboratory evaluations. J Appl Toxicol 1999: 19: 255-260.
17. Gerberick G F, Robinson M K, Felter S, White I R, Basketter D A. Understanding fragrance allergy using an exposure-based risk assessment approach. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 45: 333-340.
18. Patlewicz G Y, Basketter D A, Smith C K, Hotchkiss SAM, Roberts D W. Skin sensitization structure activity relationships for aldehydes. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44: 331-336.
19. Basketter D A, Gerberick G F, Kimber I. Skin sensitization, vehicle effects and the local lymph node assay. Food Chem Toxicol 2001: 39: 621-627.
20. European Community. Dangerous substance directive, 22nd adaptation to technical progress (96/54/EC). Official J Eur Communities 1996: L248.
21. Sipes I G, McQueen C A, Gandolfi A J. Toxicology of the haematopoietic system. In: Comprehensive Toxicology, Vol. 4. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK 1997.
22. Haseman J K, Huff J, Boorman G A. Use of historical control data in carcinogenicity studies in rodents. Toxicol Pathol 1984: 12: 126-135.
23. Huff J E, Eustis S L, Haseman J K. Occurrence and relevance of chemically induced benign neoplasms in long-term carcinogenicity studies. Cancer Metastasis Rev 1989: 8: 1-22.
24. Patlewicz G Y, Wright Z M, Basketter D A, Pease C K, Lepoittevin J-P, Gimenez Arnau E. Structure activity relationships for selected fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 47: 219-226.