Compilation of historical local lymph node data for evaluation of skin sensitization alternative methods

Dermatitis

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 157-202

  Gerberick, G Frank ^a   Ryan, Cindy A ^b   Kern, Petra S ^b   Schlatter, Harald ^b   Dearman, Rebecca J ^b   Kimber, Ian ^b   Patlewicz, Grace Y ^b   Basketter, David A ^b  

^a PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

1 BROMOBUTANE; 1 BROMODOCOSANE; 1,2 BENZISOTHIAZOLIN 3 ONE; 1,4 BENZOQUINONE; 2 (4 AMINO 2 NITROPHENYLAMINO)ETHANOL; 2 (4 TERT AMYLCYCLOHEXYL)ACETALDEHYDE; 2 ACETYLCYCLOHEXANONE; 2 AMINO 6 CHLORO 4 NITROPHENOL; 2 AMINOPHENOL; 2,3 BUTANEDIONE; 3 AMINOPHENOL; ABIETIC ACID; ACRYLIC ACID DERIVATIVE; ALDEHYDE; ALLERGEN; ALPHA AMYL CINNAMIC ALDEHYDE; ANETHOLE; ANILINE; AROMATIC AMINE; BENZALDEHYDE; BENZO[A]PYRENE; BENZOCAINE; BENZYL BENZOATE; BENZYL BROMIDE; BENZYLIDENEACETONE; BUTANOL; ESTRAGOLE; KETONE; QUINONE DERIVATIVE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; UNINDEXED DRUG;

ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA BASE; FEMALE; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN SENSITIZATION; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ANIMALS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DERMATITIS, CONTACT; DRUG HYPERSENSITIVITY; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; MICE; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS;

EID: 30144443263     PISSN: 17103568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2310/6620.2005.05040     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Gerberick GF, Robinson MK. A skin sensitization risk assessment process for evaluation of new ingredients and products. Am J Contact Dermat 2000;11:65-73.
2. Dearman RJ, Basketter DA, Kimber I. Local lymph node assay-use in hazard and risk assessment. J Appl Toxicol 1999;19:299-306.
3. Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kimber I, et al. Local lymph node assay validation assessment for regulatory purposes. Am J Contact Dermat 2000;11:3-18.
4. Basketter DA, Evans P, Fielder RJ, et al. Local lymph node assay-validation and use in practice. Food Chem Toxicol 2002;40:593-8.
5. Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Scholes EW, Basketter DA. The local lymph node assay: developments and applications. Toxicology 1994;93:13-31.
6. Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Basketter DA, et al. The local lymph node assay: past, present and future. Contact Dermatitis 2002;47:315-28.
7. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Guidelines for testing of chemicals. Guideline no. 429. Skin sensitization: the local lymph node assay. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2002.
8. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM). The murine local lymph node assay, a test method for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemicals/compounds. Report. 1999. NIH Publication No.: 99-4494. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
9. 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. ATLA 2000;28:366-7.
10. Basketter DA, Lea LJ, 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;19:261-6.
11. Kimber I, Basketter DA, Butler M, et al. Classification of contact allergens according to potency: proposals. Food Chem Toxicol 2003;41:1799-809.
12. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC). Contact sensitization: classification according to potency. Brussels: ECETOC; 2003. Technical Report 87.
13. Ryan CA, Hulette BC, Gerberick GF. Approaches for the development of cell based in vitro methods for contact sensitization. Toxicol In Vitro 2001;15:43-55.
14. Casati S, Aeby P, Basketter DA, et al. Dendritic cells as a tool for the predictive identification of skin sensitisation hazard: the report and recommendation of ECVAM workshop 51. ATLA 2005;33:47-62.
15. Basketter DA, Blaikie L, Dearman RJ, et al. Use of the local lymph node assay for the estimation of relative contact allergenic potency. Contact Dermatitis 2000;42:344-8.
16. Basketter DA, Wright ZM, Warbrick EV, et al. Human potency predictions for aldehydes using the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 2001;45:89-94.
17. Gerberick GF, Robinson MK, Ryan CA, et al. Contact allergenic potency: correlation of human and local lymph node assay data. Am J Contact Dermat 2001;12:156-61.
18. Barratt MD, Basketter DA, Chamberlain M, et al. An expert system rulebase for identifying contact allergens. Toxicol In Vitro 1994;8:1053-60.
19. Potts RO, Guy RH. Predicting skin permeability. Pharmacol Res 1992;9:663-9.
20. Moriguchi I, Hirono S, Nakagome I, Hirano H. Comparison of reliability of log P values for drugs calculated by several methods. Chem Pharm Bull 1994;42:976-8.
21. Ashby J, Basketter DA, Patton D, Kimber I. Structure activity relationships in skin sensitization using the murine local lymph node assay. Toxicology 1995;103:177-94.
22. Estrada E, Patlewicz G, Chamberlain M, et al. Computer-aided knowledge generation for understanding skin sensitization mechanisms: the TOPS-MODE approach. Chem Res Toxicol 2003;16:1226-35.
23. Elahi EN, Wright Z, Hinselwood D, et al. Protein binding and metabolism influence on the relative skin sensitization potential of cinnamic compounds. Chem Res Toxicol 2004;17:301-10.
24. Patlewicz G, Basketter DA, Smith CK, et al. Skin-sensitization structure-activity relationships for aldehydes. Contact Dermatitis 2001;44:331-6.
25. Warbrick EV, Dearman RJ, Basketter DA, Kimber I. Failure of vehicle to influence local lymph node assay response to benzocaine. Contact Dermatitis 2000;42:164-5.
26. Basketter DA, Scholes EW. Comparison of the local lymph node assay with the guinea pig maximization test for the detection of a range of contact allergens. Food Chem Toxicol 1992;30:65-9.
27. Smith CK, Hotchkiss SA. Allergic contact dermatitis: chemical and metabolic mechanisms. London: Taylor & Francis; 2001; Appendix I.
28. Ryan CA, Gerberick GF, Cruse LW, et al. Activity of human contact allergens in the murine local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 2000;43:95-102.
29. Warbrick EV, Dearman RJ, Ashby J, et al. Preliminary assessment of the skin sensitizing activity of selected rodent carcinogens using the local lymph node assay. Toxicology 2001;163:63-9.
30. Basketter DA, Roberts DW, Cronin M, Scholes EW. The value of the local lymph node assay in quantitative structure-activity investigations. Contact Dermatitis 1992;27:137-42.
31. Roberts DW, York M, Basketter DA. Structure-activity relationships in the murine local lymph node assay for skin sensitization: a,b-diketones. Contact Dermatitis 1999;41:14-7.
32. Basketter DA, Scholes EW, Kimber I. The performance of the local lymph node assay with chemicals identified as contact allergens in the human maximization test. Food Chem Toxicol 1994;32:543-7.
33. Loveless SE, Ladies GS, Gerberick GF, et al. Further evaluation of the local lymph node assay in the final phase of an international collaborative trial. Toxicology 1996;108:141-52.
34. Patlewicz G, Wright ZM, Basketter DA, et al. Structure-activity relationships for selected fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis 2002;47:219-26.
35. Kimber I, Hilton J, Dearman RJ, et al. Assessment of the skin sensitization potential of topical medicaments using the local lymph node assay: an inter-laboratory evaluation. J Toxicol Environ Health 1998;53:563-79.
36. Wright ZM, Basketter DA, Blaikie L, et al. Vehicle effects on skin sensitizing potential of four chemicals: assessment using the local lymph node assay. Int J Cosmet Sci 2001;23:75-83.
37. Hilton J, Dearman RJ, Harvey P, et al. Estimation of relative skin sensitization potency using the local lymph node assay: a comparison of formaldehyde with glutaraldehyde. Am J Contact Dermat 1998;9:29-33.
38. Lalko J, Isola D, Api AM. Ethanol and diethyl phthalate: vehicle effects in the local lymph node assay. Int J Toxicol 2004;23:171-7.
39. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I. Strategies for identifying false positive responses in predictive skin sensitization tests. Food Chem Toxicol 1998;36:327-33.
40. Scholes EW, Basketter DA, Sarll AE, et al. The local lymph node assay: results of a final inter-laboratory validation under field conditions. J Appl Toxicol 1992;12:217-22.
41. Basketter DA, Cadby P. Reproducible prediction of contact allergenic potency using the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 2004;50:15-7.
42. Bertrand F, Basketter DA, Roberts DW, Lepoittevin J-P. Skin sensitization to eugenol and isoeugenol in mice: possible metabolic pathways involving ortho-quinone and quinone methide intermediates. Chem Res Toxicol 1997;10:335-43.
43. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I, Loveless SE. The local lymph node assay: a viable alternative to currently accepted skin sensitization tests. Food Chem Toxicol 1996;34:985-97.
44. Basketter DA, Selbie E, Scholes EW, et al. Results with OECD recommended positive control sensitizers in the maximization, Buehler and local lymph node assays. Food Chem Toxicol 1993;31:63-7.
45. Roberts DW, Basketter DA. Quantitative structure-activity relationships: sulfonate esters in the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 2000;42:154-61.
46. Warbrick EV, Dearman RJ, Lea LJ, et al. Local lymph node assay responses to paraphenylenediamine: intra- and inter-laboratory evaluations. J Appl Toxicol 1999;19:255-60.
47. Kimber I, Hilton J, Dearman RJ, et al. An international evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay and comparison of modified procedures. Toxicology 1995;103:63-73.
48. Basketter DA, Scholes EW, Cumberbatch M, et al. Sulphanilic acid: divergent results in the guinea pig maximization test and the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 1992;27:209-13.
49. Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kern PS, et al. A chemical dataset for evaluation of alternative approaches to skin sensitization testing. Contact Dermatitis 2004;50:274-88.
50. European Commission 2002. Guidance document on dermal absorption. Sanco/222/2000 rev. 6, 27. p. 6. European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Brussels.
51. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) 1992. Dermal exposure assessment: principles and applications. Interim report EPA/600/8-91/011B p. 2-31f. Exposure Assessment Group, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington DC.
52. De Heer C, Wilschut A, Stevenson H, Hackkert BC. 1999. Guidance document on the estimation of dermal absorption according to a tiered approach: an update. Zeist, The Netherlands: TNO Voeding. TNO Report No.: V98 1237, 27p.
53. Blank IH, Scheuplein RJ, MacFarlane DJ. Mechanism of percutaneous absorption. III. The effect of temperature on the transport of non-electrolytes across the skin. J Invest Dermatol 1967;49:582-9.
54. Bos JD, Meinardi MM. The 500 dalton rule for skin penetration of chemical compounds and drugs. Exp Dermatol 2000;9:165-9.
55. Smith-Pease CK, Basketter DA, Patlewicz GY. Contact allergy: the role of skin chemistry and metabolism. Clin Exp Dermatol 2003;2:177-83.
56. Balls M, Blaauboer BJ, Fentem JH, et al. Practical aspects of the validation of toxicity test procedures. Altern Lab Anim 1995;23:129-47.
57. Lepoittevin J-P, Basketter DA, Goossens A, Karlberg A-T. Allergic contact dermatitis: the molecular basis. Berlin: Springer; 1998. p. 143-6.
58. Robinson MK, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, et al. The importance of exposure estimation in the assessment of skin sensitization risk. Contact Dermatitis 2000;42:251-9.
59. Basketter DA, Clapp C, Jefferies D, et al. Predictive identification of human skin sensitization thresholds. Contact Dermatis [In press]