Categorization of chemicals according to their relative human skin sensitizing potency

Dermatitis

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 11-21

  Basketter, David A ^a   Alépée, Nathalie ^b   Ashikaga, Takao ^c   Barroso, João ^d   Gilmour, Nicola ^e   Goebel, Carsten ^f   Hibatallah, Jalila ^g   Hoffmann, Sebastian ^h   Kern, Petra ^f   Martinozzi Teissier, Silvia ^b   Maxwell, Gavin ^e   Reisinger, Kerstin ⁱ   Sakaguchi, Hitoshi ^j   Schepky, Andreas ^k   Tailhardat, Magalie ^l   Templier, Marie ^m  

^a DABMEB CONSULTANCY LTD   (United Kingdom)

^b L'ORÉAL   (France)

^c SHISEIDO RESEARCH CENTER   (Japan)

^d Cosmetics Europe Personal Care Association ^*  (Belgium)

^e UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^f PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

^g Chanel   (France)

^h Seh Consulting + Services   (Germany)

ⁱ HENKEL KGAA   (Germany)

^j KAO CORPORATION   (Japan)

^k BEIERSDORF AG   (Germany)

^l Parfums Christian Dior   (France)

^m INSTITUT DE RECHERCHE PIERRE FABRE   (France)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

1 CHLORO 2,4 DINITROBENZENE; 2 AMINOPHENOL; 2 METHYL 4 ISOTHIAZOLIN 3 ONE; 5 CHLORO 2 METHYL 4 ISOTHIAZOLIN 3 ONE; ALLERGEN; BENZOCAINE; BERYLLIUM SULFATE; CINNAMALDEHYDE; COBALT SULFATE; CONTACT ALLERGEN; DODECYL GALLATE; EUGENOL; FORMALDEHYDE; FRAGRANCE; FUMARIC ACID DIMETHYL ESTER; GLUTARALDEHYDE; GLYCERYL TRINITRATE; GLYOXAL; GOLD CHLORIDE; HYDRAZINE; HYDROXYCITRONELLAL; ISOEUGENOL; MALEIC ACID DIETHYL ESTER; MERCURIC CHLORIDE; NICKEL; PHENYLENEDIAMINE; RESORCINOL; ROSIN; THIOMERSAL; UNINDEXED DRUG;

CLASSIFICATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IN VIVO STUDY; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; PATCH TEST; POPULATION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN SENSITIZATION;

ALLERGENS; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, IMMUNOLOGIC; HUMANS; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; NO-OBSERVED-ADVERSE-EFFECT LEVEL; PATCH TESTS;

EID: 84896788075     PISSN: 17103568     EISSN: 21625220     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000003     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Kimber I, Basketter DA, Berthold K, et al. Skin sensitization testing in potency and risk assessment. Toxicol Sci 2001;59:198-208.
2. Basketter DA, Kimber I. Predictive tests for irritants and allergens and their use in quantitative risk assessment. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PF, Lepoittevin J-P, eds. Contact Dermatitis. 5th ed. Chapter 13. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2011:229-240.
3. Adler S, Basketter DA, Creton S, et al. Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects - 2010. Arch Toxicol 2011;85:367-485.
4. Basketter DA, Maxwell G. Identification and characterization of allergens: in vitro alternatives. Expert Rev Dermatol 2007;2:471-480.
5. Maxwell G, Aleksic M, Aptula A, et al. Assuring consumer safety without animal testing: a feasibility case study for skin sensitization. Altern Lab Anim 2008;36:557-568.
6. Maxwell G, Aeby P, Ashikaga T, et al. Skin sensitization: the Colipa strategy for developing and evaluating non-animal test methods for risk assessment. ALTEX 2011;28:50-55.
7. Peiser M, Tralau T, Heidler J, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis: epidemiology, molecular mechanisms, in vitro methods & regulatory aspects. Cell Mol Life Sci 2012;69:763-781.
8. Kimber I, Basketter DA, Dearman RJ. Dendritic cells and the assessment in vitro of skin sensitizing potential. Cut Ocul Toxicol 2013;32:54-59.
9. Casati S, Aeby P, Kimber I, et al. Selection of chemicals for the development and evaluation of in vitro methods for skin sensitization testing. Altern Lab Anim 2009;37:305-312.
10. Basketter DA, Cockshott A, Corsini E, et al. An evaluation of performance standards and non-radioactive endpoints for the local lymph node assay. Altern Lab Anim 2008;36:243-257.
11. United Nations. Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Part 3: Health Hazards, 2011. Available at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs-rev04/English/ 03e-part3.pdf. Accessed September 16, 2013.
12. Basketter D, Angers-Loustau A, Casati S, et al. ECVAM: progressing skin sensitization alternatives for hazard identification. Contact Dermatitis 2012;66(suppl 2):24.
13. Basketter D, Crozier J, Hubesch B, et al. Optimized testing strategies for skin sensitization - the LLNA and beyond. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 2012;64:9-16.
14. Wahlberg JE, Boman A. Guinea pig maximization test. In: Andersen KE, Maibach HI, eds. Contact Allergy Predictive Test in Guinea Pigs. Basel, Switzerland: Karger; 1985:59-106.
15. Cronin MTD, Basketter DA. Multivariate QSAR analysis of a skin sensitization database. SAR QSAR Environ Res 1994;2:159-179.
16. Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kern PS, et al. Compilation of historical local lymph node assay data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives. Dermatitis 2005;16:157-202.
17. Kern PS, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, et al. Historical local lymph node data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives: a second compilation. Dermatitis 2010;1:8-32.
18. Schlede E, Aberer W, Fuchs T, et al. Chemical substances and contact allergy-244 substances ranked according to allergenic potency. Toxicology 2003;193:219-259.
19. Basketter DA, Lea LJ, Dickens A, et al. A comparison of statistical approaches to the derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses. J Appl Toxicol 1999;19:261-266.
20. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I. The local lymph node assay EC3 value: status of validation. Contact Dermatitis 2007;57:70-75.
21. Basketter DA, Blaikie L, Dearman RJ, et al. Use of the local lymph node assay for estimation of relative contact allergenic potency. Contact Dermatitis 2000;42:344-348.
22. Ryan CA, Gerberick GF, Cruse LW, et al. Activity of human contact allergens in the murine local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 2000;43:95-102.
23. Gerberick GF, Robinson MK, Ryan CA, et al. Contact allergenic potency: Correlation of human and local lymph node assay data. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2001;12:156-161.
24. Griem P, Goebel C, Scheffler H. Proposal for a risk assessment methodology for skin sensitization based on sensitization potency data. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 2003;38:269-290.
25. Schneider K, Akkan Z. Quantitative relationship between the local lymph node assay and human skin sensitization assays. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 2004;39:245-255.
26. Basketter DA, Clapp C, Jefferies D, et al. Predictive identification of human skin sensitization thresholds. Contact Dermatitis 2005;53:260-267.
27. Api AM, Basketter DA, Cadby PA, et al. Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 2008;52:3-23.
28. Natsch A, Emter R, Ellis G. Filling the concept with data: integrating data from different in vitro and in silico assays on skin sensitizers to explore the battery approach for animal-free skin sensitization testing. Toxicol Sci 2009;107:106-121.
29. Nukada Y, Ashikaga T, Sakaguchi H, et al. Predictive performance for human skin sensitizing potential of the human cell line activation test (h-CLAT). Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:343-353.
30. 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. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 2008;50:155-199.
31. ICCVAM, 2011. Test Method Evaluation Report: Usefulness and limitations of the murine local lymph node assay for potency categorization of chemicals causing allergic contact dermatitis in humans. NJI publication 11-7709. Available at: http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/docs/immunotox-docs/LLNA-pot/TMER.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2012.
32. Cronin E. Contact Dermatitis. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1980.
33. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF. Fisher's Contact Dermatitis. 6th ed. Hamilton: BC Decker; 2008.
34. Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin J-P. Contact Dermatitis. 5th ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2011.
35. Basketter DA. The human repeated insult patch test in the 21st century: a commentary on ethics and validity. Cut Ocul Toxicol 2009;28:49-53.
36. 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;7:393-409.
37. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. The use of graded concentrationin studying skin sensitizers: experimental contact sensitization in man. Food Cosmet Toxicol 1974;12:219-227.
38. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. Effects of vehicles and elicitation concentration in contact dermatitis testing. Contact Dermatitis 1976;2:325-329.
39. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. Antimicrobials: experimental contact sensitization in man. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1973;24:399-421.
40. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. Contact allergy: predictive testing of fragrance ingredients in humans by Draize and maximization methods. J Environ Path Toxic 1980;3:235-245.
41. Marzulli F N, Maibach H I. Further studies of vehicles and elicitation concentration in experimental contact sensitization testing in humans. Contact Dermatitis 1980;6:131-133.
42. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products. 2011. SCCS/1459/1, December 13-14, 2011. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific-committees/consumer-safety/ docs/sccs-o-102.pdf. Accessed September 16, 2013.
43. Basketter DA, McFadden JP. Cutaneous allergies. In: Dietert R, Luebke R, eds. Immunotoxicity, Immune Dysfunction and Chronic Disease. New York: Springer; 2012;103-126.
44. Karlberg A-T, Basketter DA, Goossens A, et al. Regulatory classification of substances oxidized to skin sensitizers by exposure to the air. Contact Dermatitis 1999;40:183-188.
45. Hagvall L, Karlberg AT, Bråred Christensson J. Contact allergy to airexposed geraniol: clinical observations and report of 14 cases. Contact Dermatitis 2012;67:20-27.
46. Smith CM, Hotchkiss SAM. Allergic Contact Dermatitis and Metabolic Mechanisms. London, UK: Taylor and Francis; 2001.
47. Götz C, Pfeiffer R, Tigges J, et al. Xenobiotic metabolism capacities of human skin in comparison with a 3D epidermis model and keratinocyte-based cell culture as in vitro alternatives for chemical testing: activating enzymes (Phase I). Exp Dermatol 2012;21:358-363.
48. Götz C, Pfeiffer R, Tigges J, et al. Xenobiotic metabolism capacities of human skin in comparison with a 3D-epidermis model and keratinocyte-based cell culture as in vitro alternatives for chemical testing: phase II enzymes. Exp Dermatol 2012;21:364-369.
49. Thyssen JP, Menné T, Schnuch A, et al. Acceptable risk of contact allergy in the general population assessed by CE-DURVa method to detect and categorize contact allergy epidemics based on patient data. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 2009;54:183-187.
50. de Groot AC, Weyland JW, Kathon JW. Kathon CG: a review. J Am Acad Dermatol 1988;18:350-358.
51. Perrenoud D, Bircher A, Hunziker T. Frequency of sensitization to 13 common preservatives in Switzerland. Swiss Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Contact Dermatitis 1994;30:276-279.
52. White JML, Gilmour NJ, Jeffries D, et al. A general population from Thailand: incidence of common allergens with emphasis on para-phenylenediamine. Clin Exp Allergy 2007;37:1848-1853.
53. Rastogi SC, Johansen JD. Significant exposures to isoeugenol derivatives in perfumes. Contact Dermatitis 2008;58:278-281.
54. Latorre N, Borrego L, Fernández-Redondo V, et al. Patch testing with formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers: multicentre study in Spain (2005-2009). Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:286-292.
55. White JML, White IR, Kimber I, et al. Atopic dermatitis and allergic reactions to individual fragrance chemicals. Allergy 2009;64:312-316.
56. Beliauskienė A, Valiukevičienė S, Sitkauskienė B, et al. Contact sensitization to the allergens of European baseline series in patients with chronic leg ulcers. Medicina (Kaunas) 2011;47:480-485.
57. Basketter DA, Johansen JD, McFadden J, et al. Hair dyes. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PF, Lepoittevin J-P. Contact Dermatitis. 5th ed. Chapter 34. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2011:629-642.
58. García-Gavín J, Lissens R, Timmermans A, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by isopropyl alcohol: a missed allergen? Contact Dermatitis 2011;65:101-106.
59. Lessmann H, Schnuch A, Geier J, et al. Skin-sensitizing and irritant properties of propylene glycol. Contact Dermatitis 2005;3:247-259.
60. Roberts DW, Patlewicz G, Kern PS, et al. Mechanistic applicability domain classification of a local lymph node assay dataset for skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol 2007;16:1019-1030.
61. Patlewicz G, Roberts DW, Uriarte E. A comparison of reactivity schemes for the prediction of skin sensitization potential. Chem Res Toxicol 2008;21:521-541.
62. Api A M, Lalko J, Politano VT. The use of human data when conducting dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessments for fragrance ingredients; how well does the LLNA predict human NOELs? Toxicologist 2009;108:30-32.
63. ICCVAM. Recommended Performance Standards: Murine Local Lymph Node Assay. NIH Publication 09-7357. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; 2009. Available at: http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/ methods/immunotox/llna-PerfStds.htm. Accessed July 30, 2012.
64. Basketter DA, White IR, Burleson FG, et al. Dimethylfumarate: potency prediction and clinical experience. Contact Dermatitis 2013;68:269-272.