Nothing is perfect, not even the local lymph node assay: A commentary and the implications for REACH

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 60, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 65-69

  Basketter, David A ^a,e   McFadden, John F ^a   Gerberick, Frank ^b   Cockshott, Amanda ^c   Kimber, Ian ^d  

^a ST THOMAS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

^c HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^e NONE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

False negative; False positive; LLNA; REACH; Regulatory classification; Skin sensitization

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL COMPOUND;

ARTICLE; COMPUTER MODEL; HUMAN; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; NONHUMAN; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SKIN SENSITIZATION; TOXICITY TESTING;

ALLERGENS; ANIMAL WELFARE; ANIMALS; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, IMMUNOLOGIC; EUROPEAN UNION; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; GUINEA PIGS; HUMANS; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; MICE;

EID: 58949101632     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: 16000536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2008.01444.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. McCally A W, Farmer A G, Loomis E C. Corneal ulceration following use of Lash-Lure. JAMA 1933 : 101 : 1561.
2. Wilkinson J D, Shaw S, Andersen K E et al. Monitoring levels of preservative sensitivity in Europe. A 10 year overview (1991-2000). Contact Dermatitis 2002 : 46 : 207 210.
3. Collins T F. History and evolution of reproductive and developmental toxicology guidelines. Curr Pharm Des 2006 : 12 : 256 264.
4. Wagoner J K. Toxicity of vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride: a critical review. Environ Health Perspect 1983 : 52 : 61 66.
5. Cimino M C. Comparative overview of current international strategies and guidelines for genetic toxicology testing for regulatory purposes. Environ Mol Mutagen 2006 : 47 : 362 390 Erratum, Environ Mol Mutagen 2006: 47: 746 D, Keller K A. Toxicological Testing Handbook: Principles, Applications and Data Interpretation, 2nd edition, New York, Informa Healthcare USA, 2006.
6. Barile F A. Principles of Toxicology Testing. Boca Raton, CRC Press, 2008.
7. Buehler E V. Delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Arch Dermatol 1965 : 91 : 171 177.
8. Magnusson B, Kligman A M. Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Guinea Pig. Identification of Contact Allergens. Springfield, IL, Charles C Thomas, 1970.
9. 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.
10. Kimber I, Agius R, Basketter D A et al. Chemical respiratory allergy: opportunities for hazard identification and characterisation. Altern Lab Anim 2007 : 35 : 243 265.
11. Arts J H, Kuper C F. Animal models to test respiratory allergy of low molecular weight chemicals: a guidance. Methods 2007 : 41 : 61 71.
12. Cosmetics directive EU. Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (7th Amendment to the European Cosmetics Directive). Official J Eur Union 2003 : L66 : 26 35.
13. Draize J H, Woodward G, Calvery H O. Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1944 : 82 : 377 390.
14. Draize J H. Dermal toxicity. In : Appraisal of the Safety of Chemicals in Foods, Drugs and Cosmetics, Littleton, CO, Association of Foods and Drugs Officials of the United States, 1959 : 46 59.
15. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Acute Dermal Irritation/Corrosion, Test Guideline 404, Paris, OECD, 1992.
16. Basketter D A, Whittle E, Chamberlain M. Identification of irritation and corrosion hazards to skin: an alternative strategy to animal testing. Food Chem Toxicol 1994 : 32 : 539 542.
17. Nixon G A, Bannan E A, Gaynor T W, Johnston D H, Griffith J H. Evaluation of modified methods for determining skin irritation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1990 : 12 : 127 136.
18. Basketter D A, Chamberlain M, Griffiths H A, York M. The classification of skin irritants by human patch test. Food Chem Toxicol 1997 : 35 : 845 852.
19. Robinson M K, Perkins M A, Basketter D A. Application of a 4 hour human patch test method for comparative and investigative assessment of skin irritation. Contact Dermatitis 1998 : 38 : 194 202.
20. Robinson M K, Basketter D A. Validity and ethics of the human 4 hour patch test as an alternative method to assess acute skin irritation potential. Contact Dermatitis 2001 : 45 : 1 12.
21. Basketter D A, York M, McFadden J P, Robinson M K. Determination of skin irritation potential in the human 4-h patch test. Contact Dermatitis 2004 : 51 : 1 4.
22. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Test Guideline 471, Paris, OECD, 1997.
23. Worth A P, Balls M. The principles of validation and the ECVAM validation process. Alternatives to laboratory animals. 2002 : 30 (Suppl. 2 125 128.
24. Basketter D A, Scholes E W. 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 69.
25. 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.
26. Basketter D A, Lea L, Cooper K, Dickens A, Stocks J, Pate I, Dearman R J, Kimber I. Thresholds for classification as a skin sensitiser in the local lymph node assay: a statistical evaluation. Food Chem Toxicol 1999 : 37 : 1167 1174.
27. 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 : 366 367.
28. Dean J H, Twerdok L E, Tice R R, Sailstad D M, Hattan D G, Stokes W S. 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 : 258 273.
29. Basketter D A, Gerberick G F, Kimber I. Strategies for identifying false positive responses in predictive sensitisation tests. Food Chem Toxicol 1998 : 36 : 327 333.
30. Basketter D A, McFadden J, Evans P, Andersen K E, Jowsey I. Identification and classification of skin sensitisers: identifying false positives and false negatives. Contact Dermatitis 2006 : 55 : 268 273.
31. Basketter D A, Kimber I. Information derived from sensitisation test methods: test sensitivity, false positives and false negatives. Contact Dermatitis 2007 : 56 : 1 4.
32. Basketter D A Skin sensitisation: strategies for risk assessment and risk management. Br J Dermatol 2008 (in press).
33. Kligman A M, Basketter D A. A critical commentary and updating of the guinea pig maximisation test. Contact Dermatitis 1995 : 32 : 129 134.
34. Frankild S, Basketter D A, Andersen K E. The value and limitations of rechallenge in the guinea pig maximisation test. Contact Dermatitis 1996 : 35 : 135 140.
35. Basketter D A, Kan-King-Yu D, Dierkes P, Jowsey I R. Does irritation potency contribute to the skin sensitisation potency of contact allergens? J Cutan Ocul Toxicol 2007 : 26 : 279 286.
36. Gerberick G F, Cruse L W, Ryan C A, Hulette B C, Chaney J G, Skinner R A, Dearman R J, Kimber I. Use of a B cell marker to discriminate between allergens and irritants in the local lymph node assay. Toxicol Sci 2002 : 68 : 420 428.
37. Betts C, Dearman R J, Kimber I, Ryan C A, Gerberick G F, Lalko J, Api A M. B220 analysis with the local lymph node assay: proposal for a more flexible prediction model. J Appl Toxicol 2007 : 27 : 506 510.
38. Commission of the European Communities. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Official J Eur Union 2006 : L396/1.
39. Vohr H -V, Jurgen A H. The local lymph node assay being too sensitive? Arch Toxicol 2005 : 79 : 721 728.
40. Kreiling R, Hollnagel H M, Hareng L et al. Comparison of the skin sensitizing potential of unsaturated compounds and assessed by the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and the guinea pig maximization test (GPMT). Food Chem Toxicol 2008 : 46 : 1896 1904.
41. Basketter D A, Gerberick G F, Kimber I. The local lymph node assay EC3 value: status of validation. Contact Dermatitis 2007 : 57 : 70 75.
42. Van Loveren H, Cockshott A, Gebel T et al. Skin sensitization in chemical risk assessment: report of a WHO-IPCS international workshop focusing on dose-response assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008 : 50 : 155 199.
43. Api A M, Basketter D A, Cadby P A et al. Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008 (in press).