The impact of LLNA group size on the identification and potency classification of skin sensitizers: A review of published data

Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 19-22

  Basketter, David A ^a   Dearman, Rebecca J ^b   Kimber, Ian ^b   Gerberick, G Frank ^c   Ryan, Cindy A ^c  

^a DABMEB CONSULTANCY LTD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Local lymph node assay; OECD Test Guideline 429; Potency assessment; Skin sensitization

Indexed keywords

1 CHLORO 2,4 DINITROBENZENE; DICHROMATE POTASSIUM; EUGENOL; HYDROQUINONE; ISOEUGENOL; OXAZOLONE; PENICILLIN G;

DANGEROUS GOODS; GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; REVIEW; SKIN SENSITIZATION; VALIDATION PROCESS; ANIMAL; SAMPLE SIZE;

ANIMALIA; MUS;

ANIMALS; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; MICE; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 70350496243     PISSN: 15569527     EISSN: 15569535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15569520802636280     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Kimber I, Basketter DA. The murine local lymph node assay; collaborative studies and new directions: a commentary. Food Chem Toxicol 1992; 30:165-169.
2. 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. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 2001; 34:258-273.
3. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals No. 429: Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2002.
4. Hariya T, Hatao M, Ichikawa H. Development of a non-radioactive endpoint in a modified local lymph node assay. Food Chem Toxicol 1999; 37:87-93.
5. nd round. Toxicology 2005; 212:69-79.
6. Takeyoshi M, Sawaki M, Yamasaki K, Kimber I. Assessment of statistical analysis in non-radioisotopic local lymph node assay (non-RI-LLNA) with alpha-hexylcinnamic aldehyde as an example. Toxicology 2003; 30:259-263.
7. Takeyoshi M, Iida K, Shiraishi K, Hoshuyama S. Novel approach for classifying chemicals according to skin sensitizing potency by non-radioisotopic modification of the local lymph node assay. J Appl Toxicol 2005; 25:129-134.
8. Lee JK, Park JH, Park SH, Kim HS, Oh HY. A nonradioisotopic endpoint for measurement of lymph node cell proliferation in a murine allergic contact dermatitis model, using bromodeoxyuridine immunohistochemistry. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 2002; 48(1):53-61.
9. Basketter DA, Cockshott A, Corsini E, Gerberick GF, Idehara K, Kimber I, van Loveren H, Takeyoshi M, Matheson J, Mehling A, Omori T, Rovida C, Sozy T, Stokes W, Casati S. An evaluation of performance standards and non-radioactive endpoints for the local lymph node assay. ATLA 2008; 36:243-257.
10. Draft ICCVAM Performance Standards for the Murine Local Lymph Node Assay. Methods for assessing lymphocyte proliferation. September 2007. http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/docs/immunotox-docs/llna/LLNAPerfStd12Sep07FD.pdf. Accessed January 2008.
11. ICCVAM Peer Review Panel. Validation status of new version and application of murine local lymph node assay: a test method for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemicals and products. May 2008. http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/docs/immunotox-docs/LLNAPRPRept2008.pdf. Accessed January 2008.
12. Kimber I, Hilton J, Dearman RJ, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Basketter DA, Scholes EW, Ladics GS, Loveless SE, House RV, Guy A. An international evaluation of the local lymph node assay and comparison of modified procedures. Toxicology 1995; 103:63-73.
13. Loveless SE, Ladics GS, Gerberick GF, Ryan, CA, Basketter DA, Scholes EW, House RV, Hilton J, Dearman RJ, Kimber I. Further evaluation of the local lymph node assay in the final phase of an international collaborative trial. Toxicology 1996; 108:141-152.
14. Kimber I, Hilton J, Dearman RJ, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Basketter DA, Lea L, House RV, Ladics GS, Loveless SE, Hastings KL. Assessment of the skin sensitization potential of topical medicaments using the local lymph node assay: an interlaboratory exercise. J Toxicol Environ Health A 1998; 53:563-579.
15. Ryan CA, Chaney JG, Kern PS, Patlewicz GY, Basketter DA, Betts CJ, Dearman RJ, Kimber I, Gerberick GF. The reduced local lymph node assay: the impact of group size. J Appl Toxicol 2008; 28:518-523.
16. Woolhiser MR, Munson AE, Meade BJ. Comparison of mouse strains using the local lymph node assay. Toxicology 2000; 146:221-227.
17. Kligman AM. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. III. The maximization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. J Invest Dermatol 1966; 47393-409.
18. 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; 18:281-284.
19. 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 Dermatitis 2001; 44:357-361.
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 Dermatitis 2000; 11:3-18.
21. Draft ICCVAM Performance Standards for the Murine Local Lymph Node Assay. Methods for assessing lymphocyte proliferation. September 2008. http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/docs/immunotox-docs/llna/LLNAPerfStd12Sep07FD.pdf. Accessed January 2008.