Correlation between experimental human and murine skin sensitization induction thresholds

Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 298-302

  Api, Anne Marie ^a   Basketter, David ^b   Lalko, Jon ^a  

^a RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR FRAGRANCE MATERIALS   (United States)

^b DABMEB CONSULTANCY LTD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Contact allergy induction; EC3 value; fragrance; human repeated insult patch test; local lymph node assay; NESIL; skin sensitization

Indexed keywords

BENZYL ALCOHOL; BENZYL BENZOATE; CARVONE; CINNAMALDEHYDE; CINNAMYL ALCOHOL; CITRAL; CITRONELLOL; COUMARIN; EUGENOL; FARNESOL; GERANIOL; HEXOBARBITAL; HYDROXYCITRONELLAL; ISOEUGENOL; LINALOOL; SALICYLIC ACID BENZYL ESTER; VANILLIN; ALLERGEN; PERFUME;

ACCURACY; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PATCH TEST; PREDICTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SKIN SENSITIZATION; ANIMAL; CBA MOUSE; CHEMISTRY; CUTANEOUS DRUG ADMINISTRATION; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; DIFFERENTIAL THRESHOLD; DISEASE MODEL; DOSE RESPONSE; NO-OBSERVED-ADVERSE-EFFECT LEVEL; PREDICTIVE VALUE;

ADMINISTRATION, CUTANEOUS; ALLERGENS; ANIMALS; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; DIFFERENTIAL THRESHOLD; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; MICE, INBRED CBA; NO-OBSERVED-ADVERSE-EFFECT LEVEL; PATCH TESTS; PERFUME; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84946039344     PISSN: 15569527     EISSN: 15569535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/15569527.2014.979425     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Api AM, Belsito, Bruze M, et al. (2014). Criteria for the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance materials. Food Chem Toxicol 2014. [Epub ahead of print].
2. Hamilton T, De Gannes GC. Allergic contact dermatitis to preservatives and fragrances in cosmetics. Skin Therapy Lett 2011; 16: 1-4
3. Arribas MP, Soro P, Silvestre JF. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances. Part 2. Actas Dermosifiliogr 2013; 104: 29-37
4. Johansen JD, Lepoittevin J-P. Fragrances. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin J-P, eds. Contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2011: 607-627
5. Steiling W, Basketter DA, Berthold K, et al. Skin sensitisation testing - new perspectives and recommendations. Food Chem Toxicol 2001; 39: 293-301
6. Basketter D, Crozier J, Hubesch B, et al. Optimized testing strategies for skin sensitization - the LLNA and beyond. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2012; 64: 9-16
7. Basketter DA. Skin sensitisation: strategies for risk assessment and risk management. Brit J Dermatol 2008; 159: 267-273
8. Basketter DA, Clapp C, Jefferies D, et al. Predictive identification of human skin sensitisation thresholds. Contact Derm 2005; 53: 260-267
9. 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
10. Api AM, Basketter D, Cadby P, et al. Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008; 52: 3-23
11. 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
12. 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; 21: 8-32
13. Marie Api A, Belsito D, Bickers D, et al. Quantitative risk assessment of contact sensitization: clinical data to assess utility of the model. Dermatitis 2010; 21: 207-213
14. Basketter DA, White IR. Diagnostic patch testing - does it have a wider relevance?. Contact Derm 2012; 67: 1-2
15. Basketter DA, Lea L, Cooper K, et al. A comparison of statistical approaches to derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses. J Appl Toxicol 1999; 19: 261-266
16. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I. The local lymph node assay EC3 value: status of validation. Contact Derm 2007; 57: 70-75
17. Griem P, Goebel C, Scheffler H. Proposal for a risk assessment methodology for skin sensitization based on sensitization potency data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2003; 38: 269-290
18. Schneider K, Akkan Z. Quantitative relationship between the local lymph node assay and human skin sensitization assays. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2004; 39: 245-255
19. Basketter DA, Alepee N, Ashikaga T, et al. Categorisation of chemicals according to their relative human skin sensitizing potency. Dermatitis 2014; 25: 11-21
20. Kimber I, Basketter DA. The murine local lymph node assay; collaborative studies and new directions: a commentary. Food Chem Toxicol 1992; 30: 165-169
21. OECD. Local lymph node assay. Test Guideline 429. Paris: organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2002
22. McNamee PM, Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, et al. A review of critical factors in the conduct and interpretation of the human repeat insult patch test. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008; 52: 24-34
23. Politano VT, Api AM. The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials human repeated insult patch test protocol. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008; 52: 35-38
24. 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; 47: 393-409
25. Kligman AM, Epstein W. Updating the maximization test for identifying contact allergens. Contact Derm 1975; 1: 231-239
26. 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
27. RIFM database. Available from: www.rifm.org