The local lymph node assay being too sensitive?

Archives of Toxicology

Volumn 79, Issue 12, 2005, Pages 721-728

  Hans Werner, Vohr ^a   Jürgen, Ahr Hans ^a  

^a BAYER PHARMA AG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Guinea pig assay; IMDS; Irritation; LLNA; Sensitization

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CELL ACTIVATION; CELL MIGRATION; CELL PROLIFERATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENDRITIC CELL; EAR; FEMALE; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; LYMPH NODE CELL; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SKIN INFLAMMATION; SKIN IRRITATION; SKIN SENSITIZATION;

ALLERGENS; ANIMALS; CELL PROLIFERATION; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; GUINEA PIGS; IRRITANTS; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; MICE; MICE, INBRED STRAINS; PATCH TESTS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

ANIMALIA; CAVIA PORCELLUS;

EID: 28444479129     PISSN: 03405761     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00204-005-0005-9     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Basketter DA, Lea LJ, Dickens A, Briggs D, Pate I, Dearman RJ, Kimber I (1999) A comparison of statistical approaches to the derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assays dose responses. J Appl Toxic 19:261-266
2. Basketter DA, Butler M, Gamer A, Garruige JL, Gerberick GF, Kimber I, Newsome C, Steiling W and Vohr HW (2003) Contact Sensitisation: Classification According to Potency. Technical Report No. 78, ECETOC, Brussels
3. Boussiquet-Leroux C, Durand-Cavagna G, Herlin K, Holder D (1995) Evaluation of lymphocyte proliferation by immunohistochemistry in the local node assay. J Appl Toxicol 15:465-475
4. Buehler EV (1965) Delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Arch Dermatol 91:171-175
5. Commission Directive 96/54/EC of 30 July 1996 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-second time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances; published in the Official Journal of the European Communities L 248, vol 39, p 30, September 1996
6. Ehling G, Hecht M, Heusener A, Huesler J, Gamer AO, van Loveren H., Maurer Th, Riecke K, Ullmann L, Ulrich P, Vandebriel R, Vohr H-W (2005a) An European inter-laboratory validation of alternative endpoints of the murine load lymph node assay. First round. Toxicology 212(1):60-68
7. Ehling G, Hecht M, Heusener A, Huesler J, Gamer AO, van Loveren H., Maurer Th, Riecke K, Ullmann L, Ulrich P, Vandebriel R, Vohr H-W (2005b) An European inter-laboratory validation of alternative endpoints of the murine load lymph node assay. 2nd Round. Toxicology 212(1):69-79
8. Gerberick GF, House RV, Fletcher ER, Ryan CA (1992) Examination of the local lymph node assay for use in contact sensitization risk assessment. Fundam Appl Toxicol 19:438-445
9. Gerberick FG, Cruse LW, Ryan CA, Hulette BC, Chaney JG, Skinner RA, Dearman RJ, Kimber I (2002) Use of a B cell marker (B220) to discriminate between allergens and irritants in the local lymph node assay. Toxicol Sci 68:420-428
10. Hansen EM, Menue T (1990) Glutaraldehyde: patch test, vehicle and concentration. Contact Derm 23:369-370
11. Homey B, von Schilling C, Blümel J, Schuppe HC, Ruzicka T, Ahr HJ, Lehmann P and Vohr HW (1998) An integrated model for the differentiation of chemical-induced allergic and irritant skin reactions. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 153:83-94
12. ICCVAM (Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods) (1999). [website online]. The murine local lymph node assay: a test for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemicals/compounds. The results of an independent peer review evaluation coordinated by the ICC-VAM. NIH Publication No. 99-4494. Available on the Internet, http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/
13. Ikarashi Y, Tsukamoto Y, Tsuchiya T and Nakamura A (1993) Influence of irritants on lymph node cell proliferation and the detection of contact sensitivity to metal salts in the murine local lymph node assay. Contact Derm 29:128-132
14. Kimber I, Weisenberger C (1989) A murine local lymph node assay for the identification of contact allergens Assay development and results of an initial validation study. Arch Toxicol 63:274-282
15. Magnusson B (1980) Identification of contact sensitizers by animal assay. Contact Derm 6:46-50
16. Magnusson B, Kligman AM (1969) The identification of contact allergens by animal assay The guinea pig maximization test. J Invest Dermatol 52:268-276
17. Montelius J, Wahlkvist H, Boman A, Fernstrom P, Grabergs L and Wahlberg JE (1994) Experiences with the murine local lymph node assay: Inability to discriminate between allergens and irritants. Acta Derm Venereol 74:22
18. Neumann NJ, Holzle E, Plewig G, Schwarz T, Panizzon RG, Breit R, Ruzicka T, Lehmann P (2000) Photopatch testing: the 12-year experience of the German, Austrian, and Swiss photopatch test group. J Am Acad Dermatol 42:183-92
19. Neumann NJ, Blotz A, Wasinska-Kempka G, Lehmann P, Ahr HJ, Vohr HW (2005) Evaluation of phototoxic and photoallergic potentials of 13 compounds by different in vitro and in vivo methods. J Photochem Photobiol 79:25-34
20. North American Contact Dermatitis Group (1973) Epidemiology of contact dermatitis in North America: 1972. Arch Dermatol 108:537
21. OECD-Guideline for Testing of Chemicals; No.429: "Skin Sensitisation; Local Lymph Node Assay", adopted: 24th April 2002
22. OECD-Guideline for Testing of Chemicals; Section 4: Health Effects, No. 406: "Skin Sensitisation", adopted: 17th July 1992
23. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF Jr (Eds) (1995) Fischer's contact dermatitis, 4th edn. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore
24. Sikorski E, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Miller CM and Ridder GM (1996) Phenotypic analysis of lymphocyte subpopulations in lymph nodes draining the ear following exposure to contact allergens and irritants. Fundam Appl Toxicol 34:25-35
25. de Silva O, Perez MJ, Pineau N, Rougier A and Dossou KG (1993) Local lymph node assay: study of the in vitro proliferation and control of the specificity of the response by FACScan analysis. Toxicol in vitro 7:299-303
26. Suda A, Yamashita M, Tabei M, Taguchi K, Vohr H-W, Tsutsui N, Suzuki R, Kikuchi K, Sakaguchi K, Mochizuki K, Nakamura K (2001) Local lymph node assay with non-radioactive enpoints. J Toxicol Sci 27(3):205-218
27. Takeyoshi M, Yamasaki K, Yakabe Y, Takatsuki M, Kimber I (2001) Development of non-radio isotopic endpoint of murine local lymph node assay based on 5-bromo-2-deoxyuridine (BrdU) incorporation. Toxicol Lett 119:203-208
28. Takeyoshi M, Sawaki M, Yamasaki K, Kimber I (2003) Assessment of statistic analysis in non-radioisotopic local lymph node assay (non-RI-LLNA) with a-hexylcinnamic aldehyde as an example. Toxcicology 191:259-263
29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA), Health Effects Test Guidelines: OPPTS 870.2600 Skin Sensitization, EPA 712-C-03-197, March 2003
30. Ulrich P, Homey B, Vohr HW (1998) A modified murine local lymph node assay for the differentiation of contact photoallergy from phototoxicity by analysis of cytokine expression in skin-draining lymph node cells. Toxicology 125:149-168
31. Ulrich P, Streich J, Suter W (2001) Intralaboratory validation of alternative endpoints in the murine lymph node assay for the identification of contact allergic potential: primary ear skin irritation and ear-draining lymph node hyperplasia induced by topical chemicals. Arch Toxicol 74:733-744
32. Vohr HW, Homey B, Schuppe H, Kind P (1994) Photoreactions detected in a modified local lymph node assay in the mouse. Photodermatol Photoimmunol & Photomed 10:57-64
33. Vohr H-W, Blümel J, Blotz A, Homey B and Ahr HJ (2000) An intra-laboratory validation of IMDS: discrimination between (photo)allergic and (photo)irritant skin reactions in mice. Arch Toxicol 73:501-509
34. Yamano T, Shimizu M, Noda T (2005) Quantitative comparison of the results obtained by the multiple-dose guinea pig maximization test and the non-radioactive murine local lymph-node assay for various biocides. Toxicology 211:165-175