Skin irritation, false positives and the local lymph node assay: A guideline issue?

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 61, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 137-140

  Basketter, David A ^b   Kimber, Ian ^a  

^a DABMEB CONSULTANCY LTD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

False positives; Local lymph node assay; Skin irritation; Skin sensitization

Indexed keywords

COPPER CHLORIDE; DODECYL SULFATE SODIUM; MYRISTIC ACID ISOPROPYL ESTER; PYRIDINE; XYLENE;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); ERYTHEMA; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; NONHUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SKIN IRRITATION; SKIN SENSITIZATION; TOXICITY TESTING; VALIDATION PROCESS;

DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; DERMATITIS, CONTACT; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; IRRITANTS; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; SKIN DISEASES;

EID: 80052413767     PISSN: 02732300     EISSN: 10960295     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.07.004     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Allenby C.F., Basketter D.A. A model to simulate the effect of detergent on skin and evaluate any resulting effect on contact allergic reactions. Contact Dermatitis 1990, 23:291.
2. Auton T.R., Botham P.A., Kimber I. Retrospective appraisal of the relationship between skin irritancy and contact sensitisation potential. J. Tox. Environ. Health 1995, 46:149-154.
3. Basketter D.A. Skin sensitisation: strategies for risk assessment and risk management. Brit. J. Dermatol. 2008, 159:267-273.
4. 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. Cut. Ocular Toxicol. 2007, 26:279-286.
5. Basketter D.A., Ball N., Cagen S., Carrillo J.-C., Certa H., Eigler D., Esch H., Graham C., Haux D., Kreiling R., Mehling A. Application of a weight of evidence approach to analysing discordant sensitization datasets: implication for REACH. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2009, 55:90-96.
6. Basketter D.A., Gerberick G.F., Kimber I. Validation in practice - the reality for skin sensitization. Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation 2000, 395-399. Elsevier, Amsterdam. M. Balls, A.-M. van Zeller, M.E. Halder (Eds.).
7. Basketter D.A., Gerberick G.F., Kimber I. The local lymph node assay: current position in regulatory classification of skin sensitizing chemicals. Cut. Ocular Toxicol. 2007, 26:293-301.
8. 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.
9. Basketter D.A., Kimber I. Information derived from sensitisation test methods: test sensitivity, false positives and false negatives. Contact Dermatitis 2007, 56:1-4.
10. Basketter D.A., Kimber I. Skin sensitization, false positives and false negatives: experience with guinea pig assays. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2010, 30:381-386.
11. Basketter D.A., Kimber I., Hartung T. The evolution of validation. Cut. Ocular Toxicol. 2010, 29:1-3.
12. Basketter, D.A., Kolle, S.N., Schrage, A., Honarvar, N., Gamer, A.O., van Ravenzwaay, B., Landseidel, R., in press. Experience with local lymph node assay performance standards using standard radioactivity and non-radioactive cell count measurements. J. Appl. Toxicol.
13. Basketter D.A., Lea L., Cooper K., Dickens A., Briggs D., Pate I., Dearman R.J., Kimber I. A comparison of statistical approaches to derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses. J. Appl. Toxicol. 1999, 19:261-266.
14. 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.
15. Basketter D.A., McFadden J.F., Gerberick G.F., Cockshott A., Kimber I. Nothing is perfect, not even the local lymph node assay. A commentary and the implications for REACH. Contact Dermatitis 2009, 60:65-69.
16. Betts C.J., 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.
17. Buehler E.V. Delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Arch. Dermatol. 1965, 91:171-177.
18. Cockshott A., Evans P., Ryan C.A., Gerberick G.F., Betts C.J., Dearman R.J., Kimber I., Basketter D.A. The local lymph node assay in practice. A current regulatory perspective. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 2006, 25:387-394.
19. 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. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2001, 34:258-273.
20. Edwards D.A., Soranno T.M., Amoruso M.A., House R.V., Tummy A.C., Trimmer G.W., Thomas P.T., Ribeiro P.L. Screening petrochemicals for contact hypersensitivity potential: a comparison of the murine local lymph node assay with guinea pig and human test data. Fundam. Appl. Toxiol. 1994, 23:179-187.
21. EU, 2004. Test Method B.42: Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay. Directive 2004/73/EC, Off. J. Eur. Comm., L152.
22. Friedmann P.S. The relationships between exposure dose and response in induction and elicitation of contact hypersensitivity in humans. Br. J. Dermatol. 2007, 157:1093-1102.
23. Foussereau J., Petitjean J., Lantz J.P. Allergy to sodium lauryl sulphate. Contact Dermatitis Newsletter 1974, 15:433.
24. Garcia C., Ball N., Cagen S., Carrillo J.C., Certa H., Eigler D., Esch H., Graham C., Haux C., Kreiling R., Mehling A. Comparative testing for the identification of skin-sensitizing potentials of nonionic sugar lipid surfactants. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2010, 58:301-307.
25. Geier J., Uter W., Pirker C., Frosch P.J. Patch testing with the irritant sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is useful in interpreting weak reactions to contact allergens as allergic or irritant. Contact Dermatitis 2003, 48:99-107.
26. Gerberick G.F., Ryan C.A., Kern P.S., Schlatter H., Dearman R.J., Kimber I., Patlewicz G., Basketter D.A. Compilation of historical local lymph node assay data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives. Dermatitis 2005, 16:157-202.
27. Kligman A.M. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. III. The maximization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. J. Invest. Dermatol. 1966, 47:393-409.
28. Kligman A.M., Basketter D.A. A critical commentary and updating of the guinea pig maximisation test. Contact Dermatitis 1995, 32:129-134.
29. Kreiling R., Hollnagel H.M., Hareng L., Eigler D., Lee M.S., Griem P., Dreesen B., Kleber M., Albrecht A., Garcia C., Wendel A. 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.
30. Loveless S.E., Ladics G.S., Gerberick G.F., Ryan C.A., Basketter D.A., Scholes E.W., House R.V., Hilton J., Dearman R.J., Kimber I. Further evaluation of the local lymph node assay in the final phase of an international collaborative trial. Toxicology 1996, 108:141-152.
31. Magnusson B., Kligman A.M. Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Guinea Pig: Identification of Contact Allergens 1970, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL, USA, p. 141.
32. Matzinger P. Friendly and dangerous signals: is the tissue in control?. Nat. Immunol. 2007, 8:11-13.
33. McFadden J.P., Basketter D.A. Contact allergy, irritancy and 'danger'. Contact Dermatitis 2000, 42:123-127.
34. OECD, 1992. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals No. 406. Skin sensitization. Paris, France.
35. OECD, 2002. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Test Guideline 429: The Local Lymph Node Assay, Paris, France.
36. OECD, 2010a. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Test Guideline 429: The Local Lymph Node Assay, Paris, France.
37. OECD, 2010b. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Guidelines for Test of Chemicals No. 442a and 442b. Paris, France.
38. Prater E., Goring H.D., Schubert H. Sodium lauryl sulphate - a contact allergen. Contact Dermatitis 1978, 4:242-243.
39. Rustemeyer T., Van Hoogstraten I.M.W., Von Blomberg B.M.A., Gibbs S., Scheper R.G. Mechanisms of irritant and allergic contact dermatitis. Textbook of Contact Dermatitis 2011, 43-90. Springer, Berlin. fifth ed. J.D. Johansen, P.J. Frosch, J.-P. Lepoittevin (Eds.).
40. Sams W.M., Smith G. Contact dermatitis due to hydrocortisone ointment. Report of a case of sensitivity to emulsifying agents in a hydrophilic ointment base. J. Am. Med. Ass. 1957, 164:1212-1213.
41. Ulrich P., Vohr H.-W. Utilization of Irritation Data in Local Lymph node Assay. Marzulli and Maibach's Dermatotoxicology 2007, CRC Press, Boca Raton. seventh ed. H. Zhai, K.-P. Wilhelm, H.I. Maibach (Eds.).
42. Vohr H.-V., Jurgen A.H. The local lymph node assay being too sensitive?. Arch. Toxicol. 2005, 79:721-728.