Ocular toxicology: The Draize eye test

Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Volumn 6, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 367-372

  Secchi, Antonio ^a   Deligianni, Velika ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Draize eye test; Eye irritation; Ocular toxicity

Indexed keywords

IRRITANT AGENT;

DRAIZE EYE TEST; EXPERIMENTAL TEST; EYE INJURY; EYE IRRITATION; EYE TOXICITY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TOXICITY TESTING; VISION;

ANIMALS; COSMETICS; EYE; HUMANS; IRRITANTS; ORBIT; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 33748549955     PISSN: 15284050     EISSN: 14736322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.all.0000244798.26110.00     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Draize JH, Woodward G, Calvery HO. Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied to the skin and mucous membranes. J Pharmacol Exp Therapeut 1944; 82:377-390.
2. OECD Test Guideline 405. Adopted 24 April 2002. Paris: OECD.
3. Kirk Wilhelmus R. The Draize eye test. Surv Opthalmol 2001; 45:493-515.
4. Adolphe M. Alternative methods to animal experimentation: scientific and ethical problems. Bull Acad Natl Med 1995; 179:1009-1016.
5. Moskalewski S, Mystkowska ET, Kiss E. Draize test and alternatives methods for evaluating irritation from chemical substances. Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig 1995; 46:163-168.
6. Curren RD, Harbell JW. In vitro alternatives for ocular irritation. Environ Health Perspect 1998; 106 (Suppl 2):485-492.
7. Abraham MH, Hassanidi M, Jalali-Heravi M, et al. Draize rabbit eye test compatibility with eye irritation threshold in humans: a quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis. Toxicol Sci 2003; 76:384-391.
8. Griffith JF, Nixon GA, Bruce RD, et al. Dose-response studies with chemical irritants in the albino rabbit eye as a basis for selecting optimum testing conditions for predicting hazard to the human eye. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1980; 55:501-513.
9. Freeberg FE, Griffith JF, Bruce RD, Bay PHS. Correlation of animal test methods with human experience for household products. J Toxicol Cutaneous Ocul Toxicol 1984; 3:53-64.
10. Cormier EM, Hunter JE, Bilhimer W, et al. Use of clinical and consumer eye irritation data to evaluate the low-volume eye test. J Toxicol Cutaneous Ocul Toxicol 1995; 14:197-205.
11. Cormier EM, Parker RD, Henson C, et al. Determination of the intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility of the low-volume eye test and its statistical relationship to the Draize eye test. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1996; 23:156-161.
12. Roggeband R, York M, Pericoi M, Braun W. Eye irritation responses in rabbit and man after single applications of equal volumes of undiluted model liquid detergent products. Food Chem Toxicol 2000; 38:727-734.
13. Prinsen MK. The Daize eye test and in vitro alternatives: a left-handed marriage? Toxicol in Vitro 2006; 20:78-81. The necessity of a good standardization of the DET to validate alternative in-vitro tests is emphasized, along with the importance of the low-volume eye test.
14. Budai P, Vàrnagy L. In vitro ocular irritation toxicity study of some pesticides. Acta Vet Hung 2000; 48:221-228.
15. Budai P, Varnagy L, Fejes S, et al. Irritative effects of some pesticides and a technical component on tissue structure of the chorioallantoic membrane. Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci 2004; 69:807-809.
16. Vinardell MP, Mitjans M. The chorioallantoic membrane test as a model to predict the potential human eye irritation induced by commonly used laboratory solvents. Toxicol in Vitro 2006; 20:1066-1070. The capability of the HET-CAM test is shown in predicting the eye irritation induced by industrial and laboratory solvents.
17. Neumann NJ, Holzle E, Lehmann P, et al. Photo hen' egg test: a model for phototoxicity. Br J Dermatol 1997; 136:326-330.
18. Vinardell MP, Garcia L. The quantitative chorioallantoic membrane test using trypan blue stain to predict the eye irritancy of liquid scintillation cocktails. Toxicol in Vitro 2000; 14:551-555.
19. Lagarto A, Vega R, Guerra I, Gonzales R. In vitro quantitative determination of ophthalmic irritancy by the chorioallantoic membrane test with trypan blue staining as alternative to eye irritation test. Toxicol in Vitro (in press).
20. Liao Y, Wang X, Zhang L, Li G. Study on using the hen's egg test-chorrioallantoic membrane as an alternative method of Draize eye irritation test. Wei Sheng yan jiu 2004; 33:279-283.
21. Cooper KJ, Earl LK, Harbelland J, Raabe H. Prediction of ocular irritancy of prototype shampoo formulations by the isolated rabbit eye (IRE) test and bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP) assay. Toxicol in Vitro 2001; 15:95-103.
22. Gautheron P, Dukic M, Alix D, Sina JF. Bovine corneal opacity and permeability test: an in vitro assay of ocular irritancy. Fundam Appl Toxicol 1992; 18:442-449.
23. Gautheron P, Giroux J, Cottin M, et al. Interlaboratory assessment of the bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP) assay. Toxicol in Vitro 1994; 8:381-392.
24. Swanson JE, Harbell J. Evaluating the eye irritancy potential of ethanolic test materials with the bovine corneal opacity and permeability assay. Gaithersburg, MD: IIVS (institute for In Vitro Science); 1998.
25. Debbash C, Ebenhahn C, Dami N, et al. Eye irritation of low-irritant cosmetic formulations: correlation of in vitro results with clinical data and product composition. Food Chem Toxicol 2005; 43:155-165. A comparison is carried out between HET-CAM, BCOP and a novel method using CEPI with cytotoxicity and IL-8 release as endpoints. The IL-8 assay appears the most sensitive and reliable in-vitro endpoint to predict human eye tolerance for mildly irritant chemical products.
26. Van den Berghe C, Guillet MC, Compan D. Performance of porcine corneal opacity and permeability assay to predict eye irritation for water-soluble cosmetic ingredients. Toxicol in Vitro 2005; 19:823-830. On the basis of experimental study, PCOP is confirmed to be better than BCOP as a prediction model for liquid and water-soluble cosmetic products irritancy.
27. Burton ABG, York M, Lawrence RS. The in vitro assessment of severe eye irritance. Food Cosmetics Toxicol 1981; 19:471-481.
28. Jester JV. Extent of corneal injury as a biomarker for hazard assessment and the development of alternative models to the Draize rabbit eye test. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 2006; 25:41-54. On the basis of a comparison between the evaluation of the initial corneal injury in ex-vivo and in-vivo experiments, its importance in predicting subsequent responses and in replacing the DET is suggested.
29. Doucet O, Lanvin M, Zastrow L. A new in vitro human epithelial model for assessing the eye irritating potential of formulated cosmetic products. In Vitro Mol Toxicol J Basic Appl Res 1998; 11:273-283.
30. Doucet O, Lanvin M, Thillou C, et al. Reconstituted human corneal epithelium: a new alternative to the Draize eye test for the assessment of the eye irritation potential of chemicals and cosmetic products. Toxicol in Vitro 2006; (4):499-512. The robustness is shown of a new three-dimensional epithelial model cultivated from human corneal cells for the prediction of the potential irritancy of chemicals and complex formulated products. Good correlation between in-vivo and in-vitro results is obtained.
31. Van Goethem F, Adriaens E, Alepee N, et al. Prevalidation of a new in vitro reconstituted human cornea model to assess the eye irritating potential of chemicals. Toxicol in Vitro 2006; 20:1-17. A high reproducibility of the results of a standardized HCE protocol obtained by different laboratories to access acute ocular irritation is presented, along with a good, but nonperfect, concordance with in-vivo classifications.
32. Huhtala A, Nurmi SK, Tahti H, et al. The immunohistochemical characterisation of an Sv 40-immortalised human corneal epithelial cell line. Altern Lab Anim 2003; 31:409-417.
33. Offord EA, Sharif NA, Mace K, et al. Immortalized human corneal epithelial cells for ocular toxicity and inflammation studies. Invest Ophtalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40:1091-1101.
34. Lilja J, Forsby A. Development of a sensory neuronal cell model for the estimation of mild eye irritation. Altern Lab Anim 2004; 3:339-343.
35. ECVAM. INVITOX Protocol no 37. Red blood cells test system. European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods; 1992.
36. Lagarto A, Vega R, Vega Y, et al. Comparative study of red blood cell method in rat and calves blood as alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test. Toxicol in Vitro 2006; 20:529-533. The RBC assay using calves' blood shows better results than the RBC assay using rats' blood. In particular, a significant generation of false negative results was observed when rat blood is employed.
37. Martinez V, Corsini A, Mitjans M, et al. Evaluation of eye and skin irritation of arginine-derivative surfactants using different in vitro endpoints as alternative to the in vivo assays. Toxicol Lett 2006; 164:259-267. Differences in irritancy potential of new surfactants, not noticeable on performing a comparative DET, are detected by in-vitro models using the keratynocyte cell line NCTC 2544 and measuring different endpoints.
38. Liao Y, Wang X, Zhang LS, et al. Study on the use of haemoglobin denaturation test as an alternative to Draize eye irritation test. Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 2004; 35:654-657.
39. Liebsch M, Spielmann H. Currently available in vitro methods used in the regulatory toxicology. Toxicol Lett 2002; 127:127-134.