The local lymph node assay in practice: A current regulatory perspective

Human and Experimental Toxicology

Volumn 25, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 387-394

  Cockshott, Amanda ^a   Evans, P ^a   Ryan, C A ^b   Gerberick, G F ^b   Betts, C J ^c   Dearman, R J ^c   Kimber, I ^c   Basketter, D A ^d  

^a HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE   (United Kingdom)

^b PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

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

^d UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Hazard identification; Local lymph node assay; Skin sensitization

Indexed keywords

2 BUTANONE; DIMETHYL SULFOXIDE; N,N DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE; PROPYLENE GLYCOL;

CELL PROLIFERATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; EXPERIMENTAL TEST; HUMAN; IRRITABILITY; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SKIN SENSITIZATION; TOXICITY; UNITED KINGDOM;

ANIMALS; CELL PROLIFERATION; DERMATITIS, CONTACT; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; GUIDELINES; IRRITANTS; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; LYMPH NODES; MALE; MICE; MICE, INBRED CBA; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ANIMALIA; CAVIA PORCELLUS;

EID: 33746490641     PISSN: 09603271     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1191/0960327106ht640oa     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Kimber I, Basketter DA. The murine local lymph node assay: a commentary on collaborative trials and new directions. Food Chem Toxicol 1992; 30: 165-69.
2. Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Basketter DA, Ryan CA, Gerberick GF. The local lymph node assay: past, present and future. Contact Dermat 2002; 47: 315-28.
3. Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Scholes EW, Basketter DA. The local lymph node assay: developments and application. Toxicology 1994; 93: 13-31.
4. Dean JH, Twerdok LE, Tice RR, Sailstad DM, Hattan DG, Stokes WS. ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. II. Conclusions and recommendations of an independent scientific peer review panel. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2001; 34: 258-73.
5. Balls M, Hellsten E. Statement on the validity of the local lymph node assay for skin sensitisation testing. ECVAM Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra. Altern Lab Anim 2000; 28: 366-67.
6. Magnusson B, Kligman AM. Allergic contact dermatitis in the guinea pig. Identification of contact allergens. Charles C Thomas, 1970.
7. Elliott-Minty C, Evans P. Regulatory aspects of testing new industrial chemicals for skin sensitisation potential. Hum Exp Toxicol 1998; 17: 498.
8. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Guidelines for testing of chemicals. Guideline no. 429. Skin sensitisation: local lymph node assay. Paris, 2002.
9. Kimber I, Basketter DA, Butler M, Gamer A, Garrigue J-L, Gerberick GF, et al. Classification of contact allergens according to potency: proposals. Food Chem Toxicol 2003; 41: 1799-809.
10. Basketter DA, Lea LJ, Cooper K, Dickens A, Briggs D, Pate I, et al. A comparison of statistical approaches to derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses. J Appl Toxicol 1999; 19: 261-66.
11. Dearman RJ, Hilton J, Evans P, Harvey P, Basketter DA, Kimber I. Temporal stability of local lymph node assay responses to hexyl cinnamic aldehyde. J Appl Toxicol 1998; 18: 281-84.
12. Dearman RJ, Wright ZM, Basketter DA, Ryan CA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I. The suitability of hexyl cinnamic aldehyde as a calibrant for the murine local lymph node assay. Contact Dermat 2001; 44: 357-61.
13. Kimber I, Hilton J, Dearman RJ, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Basketter DA, et al. An international evaluation of the local lymph node assay and comparison of modified procedures. Toxicology 1995; 103: 63-73.
14. Loveless SE, Ladics GS, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Basketter DA, Scholes EW, et al. Further evaluation of the local lymph node assay in the final phase of an international collaborative trial. Toxicology 1996; 108: 141-52.
15. Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kern PS, Dearman RJ, Kimber I, Patlewicz GY, et al. A chemical dataset for evaluation of alternative approaches to skin-sensitization testing. Contact Dermat 2004; 50: 274-88.
16. Basketter DA, Gilmour NJ, Briggs D, Ullmann LG, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, et al. Utility of historical control vehicle-control data in the interpretation of the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermat 2003; 49: 37-41.
17. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC). Skin sensitisation testing: methodological considerations. In Carpanini FM ed. Technical Report No. 78. ECETOC, 1999.
18. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I. Skin sensitisation, vehicle effects and the local lymph node assay. Food Chem Toxicol 2001; 39: 621-27.
19. National Institutes of Health (NIH). The murine local lymph node assay: a test method for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemicals/compounds. NIH No. 99-4494, 1999.
20. Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Lea LJ, Basketter DA. Local lymph node assay validation assessment for regulatory purposes. Am J Contact Dermat 2000; 11: 13-18.
21. Wright Z, Basketter DA, Dearman RJ, Ryan CA, Gerberick GF, Fielder RJ, et al. The local lymph node assay: current regulatory status. Toxicol Sci 2002; 66: 240.
22. Woolhiser MR, Munson AE, Meade BJ. Comparison of mouse strains using the local lymph node assay. Toxicology 2000; 166: 221-27.
23. Edwards DA, Soranno TM, Amoruso MA, House RV, Tummey AC, Trimmer GW, et al. Screening petrochemicals for contact hypersensitivity potential: a comparison of the murine local lymph node assay with guinea pig and human test data. Fundam Appl Toxicol 1994; 23: 179-187.
24. Sailstad DM, Krishnan SD, Tepper JS, Doerfler DL, Selgrade MK. Dietary vitamin A enhances sensitivity of the local lymph node assay. Toxicology 1995; 6: 157-63.