Computer models versus reality: How well do in silico models currently predict the sensitization potential of a substance

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 468-485

  Teubner, Wera ^a   Mehling, Anette ^b   Schuster, Paul Xaver ^b   Guth, Katharina ^b   Worth, Andrew ^c   Burton, Julien ^c   van Ravenzwaay, Bennard ^b   Landsiedel, Robert ^b  

^a CIBA GEIGY LTD   (Switzerland)

^b BASF SE   (Germany)

^c JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

Author keywords

(Q)SAR; Adverse outcome pathway; Case Ultra; GHS; OECD toolbox; Skin sensitization; TIMES SS; TOPKAT; Toxtree; Vega

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; CHEMICAL PARAMETERS; COMPUTER MODEL; CONTROLLED STUDY; IN VITRO STUDY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RELIABILITY; SKIN SENSITIZATION; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL MODEL; VIRTUAL REALITY;

(Q)SAR; ACD; ADVERSE OUTCOME PATHWAY; ALLERGIC CONTACT DERMATITIS; AOP; CASE ULTRA; ECHA; EUROPEAN CHEMICALS AGENCY; GHS; GLOBALLY HARMONIZED SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION AND LABELING OF CHEMICALS; LLNA; LMW; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT; OECD; OECD TOOLBOX; ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; REACH; REGISTRATION EVALUATION AUTHORISATION AND RESTRICTION OF CHEMICALS; SKIN SENSITIZATION; TIMES-SS; TOPKAT; TOXTREE; VEGA;

ALLERGENS; ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES; ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; HUMANS; MODELS, CHEMICAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SKIN; SKIN TESTS;

EID: 84887828102     PISSN: 02732300     EISSN: 10960295     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.09.007     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Andersen K.L., Frankild S. Predictive testing in contact dermatitis. Allergic contact dermatitis. Clin. Dermatol. 1997, 15:645-654.
2. Aptula A.O., Roberts D.W. Mechanistic applicability domains for nonanimal-based prediction of toxicological end points: general principles and application to reactive toxicity. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2006, 19:1097-1105.
3. Aptula A.O., Roberts D.W., Pease C.K. Haptens, prohaptens and prehaptens, or electrophiles and proelectrophiles. Contact Dermatitis 2007, 56:54-56.
4. Ball N., Cagen S., Carrillo J.C., Certa H., Eigler D., Emter R., Faulhammer F., Garcia C., Graham C., Haux C., Kolle S.N., Kreiling R., Natsch A., Mehling A. Evaluating the sensitization potential of surfactants: integrating data from the local lymph node assay, guinea pig maximization test, and in vitro methods in a weight-of-evidence approach. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2011, 60:389-400.
5. Barratt M.D., Basketter D.A., Chamberlain M., Admans G.D., Langowski J.J. An expert system rulebase for identifying contact allergens. Toxicol. In Vitro 1994, 8:1053-1060.
6. Basketter D.A., Gerberick G.F., Kimber I. Strategies for identifying false positive responses in predictive skin sensitization tests. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1998, 36:327-333.
7. Basketter D.A., Lea L.J., Cooper K., Stocks J., Dickens A., Pate I., Dearman R.J., Kimber I. Threshold for classification as a skin sensitizer in the local lymph node assay: a statistical evaluation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1999, 37:1167-1174.
8. Basketter D., Kolle S.N., Schrage A., Honarvar N., Gamer A.O., van R.B., Landsiedel R. Experience with local lymph node assay performance standards using standard radioactivity and nonradioactive cell count measurements. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2012, 32:590-596.
9. Bauch C., Kolle S.N., Ramirez T., Eltze T., Fabian E., Mehling A., Teubner W., Ravenzwaay B.V., Landsiedel R. Putting the parts together: combining in vitro methods to test for skin sensitizing potentials. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2012, 63:489-504.
10. Chakravarti S.K., Saiakhov R.D., Klopman G. Optimizing predictive performance of Case Ultra expert system models using the applicability domains of individual toxicity alerts. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52:2609-2618.
11. Chaudhry Q., Piclin N., Cotterill J., Pintore M., Price N.R., Chretien J.R., Roncaglioni A. Global QSAR models of skin sensitisers for regulatory purposes. Chem. Cent. J. 2010, 4(Suppl. 1):S5.
12. Chipinda, I., Hettick, J.M., and Siegel, P.D., (2011). Haptenation: chemical reactivity and protein binding. J. Allergy (Cairo) 2011, article ID 839682.
13. Dupuis G., Benezra C. Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Simple Chemicals: A Molecular Approach 1982, Marcel Dekker, New York and Basel.
14. Ellison C.M., Enoch S.J., Cronin M.T., Madden J.C., Judson P. Definition of the applicability domains of knowledge-based predictive toxicology expert systems by using a structural fragment-based approach. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2009, 37:533-545.
15. Enoch S.J., Madden J.C., Cronin M.T. Identification of mechanisms of toxic action for skin sensitisation using a SMARTS pattern based approach. SAR QSAR. Environ. Res. 2008, 19:555-578.
16. Gamer A.O., Nies E., Vohr H.W. Local lymph node assay (LLNA): comparison of different protocols by testing skin-sensitizing epoxy resin system components. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2008, 52:290-298.
17. Gerberick G.F., Ryan C.A., Kern P.S., Schlatter H., Dearman R.J., Kimber I., Patlewicz G.Y., Basketter D.A. Compilation of historical local lymph node data for evaluation of skin sensitization alternative methods. Dermatitis 2005, 16:157-202.
18. Graham C., Gealy R., Gealy R., Macina O.T., Karl M.H., Rosenkranz H.S. QSAR for allergic contact dermatitis. QSAR Comb. Sci. 1996, 15:224-229.
19. IGHRC Predictive Approaches to Chemical Hazard Identification and Characterization: Current use by UK Government Departments and Agencies (cf16) 2013, Institute of Environment and Health, Cranfield University, UK.
20. Jaeckh C., Fabian E., van R.B., Landsiedel R. Relevance of xenobiotic enzymes in human skin in vitro models to activate pro-sensitizers. J. Immunotoxicol. 2012, 9:426-438.
21. Karlsson I., Vanden Broecke K., Martensson J., Goossens A., Borje A. Clinical and experimental studies of octocrylene's allergenic potency. Contact Dermatitis 2011, 64:343-352.
22. Kayser, D., Schlede, E., (2001). Chemikalien und Kontaktallergien - eine bewertende Zusammenstellung. Urban & Vogel Medien und Medizin Verlags GmbH.
23. Kern P.S., Gerberick G.F., Ryan C.A., Kimber I., Aptula A., Basketter D.A. Local lymph node data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives: a second compilation. Dermatitis 2010, 21:8-32.
24. Kinsner-Ovaskainen A., Maxwell G., Kreysa J., Barroso J., Adriaens E., Alépée N., Berg N., Bremer S., Coecke S., Comenge J.Z., Corvi R., Casati S., Dal Negro G., Marrec-Fairley M., Griesinger C., Halder M., Heisler E., Hirmann D., Kleensang A., Kopp-Schneider A., Lapenna S., Munn S., Prieto P., Schechtman L., Schultz T., Vidal J.M., Worth A., Zuang V. Report of the EPAA-ECVAM workshop on validation of integrated testing strategies (ITS). ATLA 2012, 40:175-181.
25. Kreiling R., Hollnagel H.M., Hareng L., Eigler D., Lee M.S., Griem P., Dreessen B., Kleber M., Albrecht A., Garcia C., Wendel A. Comparison of the skin sensitizing potential of unsaturated compounds as assessed by the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and the guinea pig maximization test (GPMT). Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008, 46:1896-1904.
26. Landsteiner K., Jacobs J. Studies on the sensitization of animals with simple chemical compounds II. J. Exp. Med. 1936, 64:625-639.
27. Lepoittevin J.P. Metabolism versus chemical transformation or pro- versus prehaptens?. Contact Dermatitis 2006, 54:73-74.
28. Magnusson B., Kligman A.M. The identification of contact allergens by animal assay. The guinea pig maximization test. J. Invest. Dermatol. 1969, 52:268-276.
29. Mehling A., Eriksson T., Eltze T., Kolle S., Ramirez T., Teubner W., van Ravenzwaay B., Landsiedel R. Non-animal test methods for predicting skin sensitization potentials. Arch. Toxicol. 2012, 86(8):1273-1295.
30. Mekenyan O., Dimitrov S., Pavolov T., Dimitrova G., Todorov M., Petkov P., Kotov S. Simulation of chemical metabolism for fate and hazard assessment. V. Mammalian hazard assessment. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2012, 23:553-606.
31. Oesch F., Fabian E., Oesch-Bartlomowicz B., Werner C., Landsiedel R. Drug-metabolizing enzymes in the skin of man, rat, and pig. Drug Metab Rev. 2007, 39:659-698.
32. Patlewicz, G., Worth, A., (2008). Review of data sources, QSARs and integrated testing strategies for skin sensitisation. [EUR 23225 EN]. JRC European Commission. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports.
33. Roberts D.W., Patlewicz G., Dimitrov S.D., Low L.K., Aptula A.O., Kern P.S., Dimitrova G.D., Comber M.I., Phillips R.D., Niemela J., Madsen C., Wedebye E.B., Bailey P.T., Mekenyan O.G. TIMES-SS-a mechanistic evaluation of an external validation study using reaction chemistry principles. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2007, 20:1321-1330.
34. Robinson M.K. Optimization of an in vitro lymphocyte blastogenesis assay for predictive assessment of immunologic responsiveness to contact sensitizers. J. Invest. Dermatol. 1989, 92:860-867.
35. Warshaw E.M., Botto N.C., Maibach H.I., Fowler J.F., Rietschel R.L., Zug K.A., Belsito D.V., Taylor J.S., DeLeo V.A., Pratt M.D., Sasseville D., Storrs F.J., Marks J.G., Mathias C.G. Positive patch-test reactions to propylene glycol: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 1996 to 2006. Dermatitis 2009, 20:14-20.