Prediction of skin sensitization potency sub-categories using peptide reactivity data

The dimer effect: A refinement approach towards skin sensitization assessment in-chemico using Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay

Skin sensitization is a key endpoint for safety assessment, especially for cosmetics and personal care products. The adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization and the chemical and biological events driving the induction of human skin sensitization are now well understood. Several non-animal test methods have been developed to predict sensitizer potential by measuring the impact of chemical sensitizers on these key events. In this work, we have focused on Key Event 1 (the molecular initiating step), which is based on formation of a covalent adduct between skin sensitizers and endogenous proteins and/or peptides in the skin. There exists three in-chemico assays approved by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development-(1) Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA), (2) Amino Acid Derivative Reactivity Assay (ADRA), and (3) Kinetic Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (kDPRA) to quantify peptide/amino acid derivative depletion after incubation with test chemicals. However, overestimated depletion of the cysteine-based peptide/amino acid derivatives is known in such assays because of the dimerization of the thiol group. In this present work, we report the synthesis and structural confirmation of the dimer of N-(2-[1-naphthyl]acetyl)-L-cysteine (NAC) from the ADRA assay to allow simultaneous determination of (a) peptide depletion by quantifying NAC monomer and (b) peptide dimerization by quantifying NAC dimer thereby eliminating the overestimation. We present a case study with three chemicals to demonstrate the importance of this approach. Thus, this simultaneous assay gives a more informed view of the peptide reactivity of chemicals to better identify skin sensitizers.

Protein Haptenation and Its Role in Allergy

Humans are exposed to numerous electrophilic chemicals either as medicines, in the workplace, in nature, or through use of many common cosmetic and household products. Covalent modification of human proteins by such chemicals, or protein haptenation, is a common occurrence in cells and may result in generation of antigenic species, leading to development of hypersensitivity reactions. Ranging in severity of symptoms from local cutaneous reactions and rhinitis to potentially life-threatening anaphylaxis and severe hypersensitivity reactions such as Stephen-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), all these reactions have the same Molecular Initiating Event (MIE), i.e. haptenation. However, not all individuals who are exposed to electrophilic chemicals develop symptoms of hypersensitivity. In the present review, we examine common chemistry behind the haptenation reactions leading to formation of neoantigens. We explore simple reactions involving single molecule additions to a nucleophilic side chain of proteins and complex reactions involving multiple electrophilic centers on a single molecule or involving more than one electrophilic molecule as well as the generation of reactive molecules from the interaction with cellular detoxification mechanisms. Besides generation of antigenic species and enabling activation of the immune system, we explore additional events which result directly from the presence of electrophilic chemicals in cells, including activation of key defense mechanisms and immediate consequences of those reactions, and explore their potential effects. We discuss the factors that work in concert with haptenation leading to the development of hypersensitivity reactions and those that may act to prevent it from developing. We also review the potential harnessing of the specificity of haptenation in the design of potent covalent therapeutic inhibitors.

The skin sensitization adverse outcome pathway: exploring the role of mechanistic understanding for higher tier risk assessment

For over a decade, the skin sensitization Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) has served as a useful framework for development of novel in chemico and in vitro assays for use in skin sensitization hazard and risk assessment. Since its establishment, the AOP framework further fueled the existing efforts in new assay development and stimulated a plethora of activities with particular focus on validation, reproducibility and interpretation of individual assays and combination of assay outputs for use in hazard/risk assessment. In parallel, research efforts have also accelerated in pace, providing new molecular and dynamic insight into key events leading to sensitization. In light of novel hypotheses emerging from over a decade of focused research effort, mechanistic evidence relating to the key events in the skin sensitization AOP may complement the tools currently used in risk assessment. We reviewed the recent advances unraveling the complexity of molecular events in sensitization and signpost the most promising avenues for further exploration and development of useful assays.

Non-animal approaches for photoallergenicity safety assessment: Needs and perspectives for the toxicology for the 21st century

Certain chemicals and/or their byproducts are photoactivated by UV/VIS and trigger a dermal allergenic response, clinically recognized as photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD). It is important to identify the chemicals which are potentially photoallergenic, not only for establishing the correct differential diagnosis between PACD and other photodermatoses, but also as causative agents which should be avoided as a preventative measure. Moreover, materials with photoallergenic properties need to be correctly identified to allow thorough safety assessments for their use in finished products (e.g. cosmetics). Development of methods for predicting photoallergenicity potential of chemicals has advanced at slow pace in recent years. To date, there are no validated methods for photosensitisation potential of chemicals for regulatory purposes, although it remains a required endpoint in some regions. The purpose of this review is to explore the mechanisms potentially involved in the photosensitisation process and discuss the methods available in the literature for identification of photosensitisers. The review also explores the possibilities of further research investment required to develop human-relevant new approach methodologies (NAMs) and next generation risk assessment (NGRA) approaches, considering the current perspectives and needs of the Toxicology for the 21st Century.

Investigating sensitization activity of azobenzene disperse dyes via the Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA)

Azobenzene disperse dyes are the fastest-growing category of commercial dyestuffs and have been found in indoor house dust and in children's polyester apparel. Azobenzene disperse dyes are implicated as potentially allergenic; however, little experimental data is available on allergenicity of these dyes. Here, we examine the binding of azobenzene disperse dyes to nucleophilic peptide residues as a proxy for their potential reactivity as electrophilic allergenic sensitizers. The Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) was utilized via both a spectrophotometric method and a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method. We tested dyes purified from commercial dyestuffs as well as several known transformation products. All dyes were found to react with nucleophilic peptides in a dose-dependent manner with pseudo-first order kinetics (rate constants as high as 0.04 h-1). Rates of binding reactivity were also found to correlate to electrophilic properties of dyes as measured by Hammett constants and electrophilicity indices. Reactivities of polyester shirt extracts were also tested for DPRA activity and the shirt extracts with high measured abundances of azobenzene disperse dyes were observed to induce greater peptide reactivity. Results suggest that azobenzene disperse dyes may function as immune sensitizers, and that clothing containing these dyes may pose risks for skin sensitization.

Evidential requirements for the regulatory hazard and risk assessment of respiratory sensitisers: methyl methacrylate as an example

This review addresses the need for a framework to increase the consistency, objectivity and transparency in the regulatory assessment of respiratory sensitisers and associated uncertainties. Principal issues are considered and illustrated through a case study (with methyl methacrylate). In the absence of test methods validated for regulatory use, formal documentation of the weight-of-evidence for hazard classification both at the level of integration of individual studies within lines of evidence and across a broad range of data streams was agreed to be critical for such a framework. An integrated approach is proposed to include not only occupational studies and clinical evidence for the regulatory assessment of respiratory sensitisers, but also information on structure and physical and chemical factors, predictive approaches such as structure activity analysis and in vitro and in vivo mechanistic and toxicokinetic findings. A weight-of-evidence protocol, incorporating integration of these sources of data based on predefined considerations, would contribute to transparency and consistency in the outcome of the assessment. In those cases where a decision may need to be taken on the basis of occupational findings alone, conclusions should be based on transparent weighting of relevant data on the observed prevalence of occupational asthma in various studies taking into account all relevant information including the range and nature of workplace exposures to the substance of interest, co-exposure to other chemicals and study quality.

New Approach Methodologies in Immunotoxicology: Challenges and Opportunities

To maintain the integrity of an organism, a well-functioning immune system is essential. Immunity is dynamic, with constant surveillance needed to determine whether to initiate an immune response or to not respond. Both inappropriate immunostimulation and decreased immune response can be harmful to the host. A reduced immune response can lead to high susceptibility to cancer or infections, whereas an increased immune response can be related to autoimmunity or hypersensitivity reactions. Animal testing has been the gold standard for hazard assessment in immunotoxicity but a lot of efforts are ongoing to develop non-animal-based test systems, and important successes have been achieved. The term "new approach methodologies" (NAMs) refer to the approaches which are not based on animal models. They are applied in hazard and risk assessment of chemicals and include approaches such as defined approaches for data interpretation and integrated approaches to testing and assessment. This review aims to summarize the available NAMs for immunotoxicity assessment, taking into consideration both inappropriate immunostimulation and immunosuppression, including implication for cancer development.

Theoretical Validation of In Chemico Skin Sensitization Assay "ADRA" Using the Products Formed by Nucleophilic Reagents and Chemicals

Amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) is an in chemico assay for assessing the skin sensitization potential of chemicals by evaluating the reactivity of nucleophilic reagents that mimic skin proteins. N-(2-(1-Naphthyl)acetyl)-l-cysteine (NAC) and α-N-(2-(1-naphthyl)acetyl)-l-lysine (NAL), used as nucleophilic reagents, are small-molecule derivatives of two different amino acids, each with a naphthalene ring attached. The rate of decrease in the amount of NAC or NAL in the reaction solution is evaluated in this assay as an indicator of the test substance's skin sensitization ability. However, the products formed between the nucleophilic reagent and the test substance, which play an important role in vivo, are not directly identified. Therefore, six highly reactive chemicals, including the proficiency substances listed in the OECD Test Guidelines─squaric acid diethyl ester, 2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one (MI), p-benzoquinone, palmitoyl chloride, diphenylcyclopropenone (DPCP), and imidazolidinyl urea (IU)─were used to determine each formed product. Samples were prepared according to the standard ADRA method, and the formed products were predicted on the basis of the reaction mechanism. Excluding DPCP, the estimated structures were validated using mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry on the synthesized samples. In this manner, the products of each nucleophile were confirmed for all examined test substances. The estimated structure products were obtained through a series of reactions initiated by the nucleophilic attack of NAC's thiol group or NAL's amino group on the test substance's electron-deficient carbonyl carbon. However, contrary to expectations, disulfide-linked-type ring-opened products were detected in the case of MI, and products with free formaldehyde in solution were detected in the case of IU. In summary, all skin sensitizers tested herein reacted with NAC and/or NAL to give products. This supports the theoretical validity of ADRA, which provides an indirect evaluation of the formed products based on a decrease in nucleophilic reagents.

The correlation of haptenation of gold nanoparticles and cysteine modified screen printed carbon electrode by impedance technique with local lymph node assay data

Skin sensitization occurs when a skin sensitizer binds covalently to skin proteins through the haptenation process. The objective of this study was to correlate the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) data of a screen printed carbon electrode (SPCE) modified with cysteine and gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) with local lymph node assay (LLNA) data as a potential skin sensitizer biosensor. The EIS was used to quantify variations in charge transfer resistance of skin sensitizers (ΔR_CT^{skin sensitizer}) due to different binding rates of skin sensitizers to cysteine. SPCE was modified through electrodeposition of AuNPs/thiourea/self-assembly of AuNPs/cysteine (assigned as ETSC) for the detection of skin sensitizers. Surface analysis of modified SPCEs using FESEM and EDX revealed a smooth surface with an uneven distribution of cysteine with AuNPs molecules. The ETSC modified SPCE showed a significant skin sensitizer biosensor since the ΔR_CT^{skin sensitizer} readings were increased proportionally to the strength of the skin sensitizers, with strong/extreme skin sensitizers displaying higher ΔR_CT^{skin sensitizer} readings compared to moderate and weak/non-skin sensitizers. The skin sensitization analysis from this work was compared to LLNA (animal study), human cell line activation (h-CLAT), direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), and KeratinoSens™, surface plasmon resonance (SPR) matched the categorization of LLNA in the following descending order: 96%, 92%, 82%, 70%, 70%, and 12%. With just an 8% mismatch with LLNA data, the EIS approach used in this study could be used as a screening tool for skin sensitizers.

Peptide reactivity assays for skin sensitisation - scope and limitations

The direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) is an OECD test guideline method that aims to determine if a chemical is reactive enough to be a skin sensitiser. It involves incubation of the test chemical at 5 mMolar concentration for 24 h with a cysteine-based peptide at 0.5 mMolar concentration and measurement of the percentage depletion (DP) of the peptide. The kinetic direct peptide reactivity assay (kDPRA) is derived from the DPRA and involves incubating the peptide with the test chemical at a range of concentrations and incubation times to produce a data matrix of DP values, which is analysed to give a reactivity parameter logk_max that assigns chemicals to the 1A potency class (high potency) if logk_max reaches the threshold value of -2. Here the DPRA, with a threshold of 47% DP, is compared against the kDPRA for their abilities to distinguish between the 1A and non-1A potency classes. It is found that they perform very similarly against a dataset of 157 chemicals with known potency, with only marginal differences in predictive performance. The thresholds of -2.0 (kDPRA) and 47% DP (DPRA) to distinguish 1A sensitisers are not scientific absolutes but the best compromises for a heterogenous set of data containing classes of chemicals for which different thresholds would be applicable. It is concluded that although the kDPRA represents a major advance towards predicting skin sensitisation potency on a continuous basis without animal testing, it offers no significant advantage over the DPRA for the purpose of 1A classification.

Skin Sensitization Testing: The Ascendancy of Non-Animal Methods

A century ago, toxicology was an empirical science identifying substance hazards in surrogate mammalian models. Over several decades, these models improved, evolved to reduce animal usage, and recently have begun the process of dispensing with animals entirely. However, despite good hazard identification, the translation of hazards into adequately assessed risks to human health often has presented challenges. Unfortunately, many skin sensitizers known to produce contact allergy in humans, despite being readily identified as such in the predictive assays, continue to cause this adverse health effect. Increasing the rigour of hazard identification is inappropriate. Regulatory action has only proven effective via complete bans of individual substances. Since the problem applies to a broad range of substances and industry categories, and since generic banning of skin sensitizers would be an economic catastrophe, the solution is surprisingly simple—they should be subject to rigorous safety assessment, with the risks thereby managed accordingly. The ascendancy of non-animal methods in skin sensitization is giving unparalleled opportunities in which toxicologists, risk assessors, and regulators can work in concert to achieve a better outcome for the protection of human health than has been delivered by the in vivo methods and associated regulations that they are replacing.

Next generation risk assessment for skin allergy: Decision making using new approach methodologies

Our aim is to develop and apply next generation approaches to skin allergy risk assessment (SARA) that do not require new animal test data and better quantify uncertainties. Significant progress has been made in the development of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), non-animal test methods, for assessment of skin sensitisation and there is now focus on their application to derive potency information for use in Next Generation Risk Assessment (NGRA). The SARA model utilises a Bayesian statistical approach to infer a human-relevant metric of sensitiser potency and a measure of risk associated with a given consumer exposure based upon any combination of human repeat insult patch test, local lymph node, direct peptide reactivity assay, KeratinoSens™, h-CLAT or U-SENS™ data. Here we have applied the SARA model within our weight of evidence NGRA framework for skin allergy to three case study materials in four consumer products. Highlighting how to structure the risk assessment, apply NAMs to derive a point of departure and conclude on consumer safety risk. NGRA based upon NAMs were, for these exposures, at least as protective as the historical risk assessment approaches. Through such case studies we are building our confidence in using NAMs for skin allergy risk assessment.

A critical review of the kinetic direct peptide reactivity assay (kDPRA) for skin sensitizer potency assessment - taking it forward

It is widely recognized that the ability of chemicals to sensitize, and the potency of those chemicals that are sensitizers, is related to their ability to covalently modify protein in the skin. With the object of putting non-animal-based prediction of skin sensitization on a more quantitative footing, a recent paper describes the development of the kinetic Direct Protein Reactivity Assay (kDPRA), in which a matrix of peptide depletion values for different reaction times and test chemical concentrations is generated and analyzed so as to derive a reactivity parameter, logk_max, which is used to classify chemicals into one of two potency categories. The present paper demonstrates that the reaction chemistry is not always consistent with the mathematical analysis of the data matrix and the kDPRA protocol does not identify such cases. Consequently the derived logk_max value is not always mechanistically meaningful and its application to predict potency can lead to misleading conclusions. It is shown that by adopting a data analysis protocol based on conventional kinetics practice, the kDPRA can be made to provide more reliably meaningful and more extensive information that can be used for purposes such as potency estimation for deriving No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESILs) required for quantitative risk assessment (QRA), deriving quality specifications in terms of acceptable impurity levels, and development of structure-activity relationships. Secondly, the paper addresses applicability domain issues, in particular the problem of deciding whether or not the kDPRA is applicable for a given chemical.

Amino Reactivity of Glutardialdehyde and Monoaldehydes─Chemoassay Profile vs Skin Sensitization Potency

Chemoassay profiling of organic electrophiles through the direct peptide reactivity assay has become an OECD-accepted nonanimal component in the REACH evaluation of potential skin sensitizers. For aldehydes forming imines (Schiff bases), however, existing chemoassays yielded inconclusive results, indicating issues with their NH₂ sensitivity and the reversibility of the reaction. In the present study, a new kinetic chemoassay employing the N terminus of glycine-para-nitroanilide, Gly-pNA, as a model nucleophile for protein NH₂ groups is introduced and applied to nine aliphatic monoaldehydes and glutardialdehyde (1,5-pentanedial) that have log K_ow (octanol/water partition coefficient) values from 0.63 to 3.99. The Gly-pNA second-order rate constants k₁ range from 8.56 to 150 L·mol^-1·min^-1 for the monoaldehydes. Interestingly, glutardialdehyde with a k₁ of 17 731 L·mol^-1·min^-1 is 170-fold more reactive than its monoaldehyde counterpart pentanal. This can be rationalized by hydration or tautomerization of the dialdehyde to monoaldehydic forms, now facilitating Schiff base formation through an intramolecular H bond. Comparison with murine local lymph node assay data from the literature reveals that adduct stability in terms of reaction thermodynamics (K = k₁/k_-1^pseudo) rather than formation kinetics (k₁) governs the skin sensitization potency of Schiff-base-forming aldehydes. The discussion includes analytically determined adduct patterns, and the impact of α- and β-carbon substitution as well as hydrophobicity on aldehyde reactivity.

Quo vadis blood protein adductomics?

Chemicals are measured regularly in air, food, the environment, and the workplace. Biomonitoring of chemicals in biological fluids is a tool to determine the individual exposure. Blood protein adducts of xenobiotics are a marker of both exposure and the biologically effective dose. Urinary metabolites and blood metabolites are short term exposure markers. Stable hemoglobin adducts are exposure markers of up to 120 days. Blood protein adducts are formed with many xenobiotics at different sites of the blood proteins. Newer methods apply the techniques developed in the field of proteomics. Larger adducted peptides with 20 amino acids are used for quantitation. Unfortunately, at present the methods do not reach the limits of detection obtained with the methods looking at single amino acid adducts or at chemically cleaved adducts. Therefore, to progress in the field new approaches are needed.

Quantitative assessment of sensitizing potency using a dose-response adaptation of GARDskin

Hundreds of chemicals have been identified as skin sensitizers. These are chemicals that possess the ability to induce hypersensitivity reactions in humans, giving rise to a condition termed allergic contact dermatitis. The capacity to limit hazardous exposure to such chemicals depends upon the ability to accurately identify and characterize their skin sensitizing potency. This has traditionally been accomplished using animal models, but their widespread use offers challenges from both an ethical and a scientific perspective. Comprehensive efforts have been made by the scientific community to develop new approach methodologies (NAMs) capable of replacing in vivo assays, which have successfully yielded several methods that can identify skin sensitizers. However, there is still a lack of new approaches that can effectively measure skin sensitizing potency. We present a novel methodology for quantitative assessment of skin sensitizing potency, which is founded on the already established protocols of the GARDskin assay. This approach analyses dose–response relationships in the GARDskin assay to identify chemical-specific concentrations that are sufficient to induce a positive response in the assay. We here compare results for 22 skin sensitizers analyzed using this method with both human and LLNA potency reference data and show that the results correlate strongly and significantly with both metrics (r_LLNA = 0.81, p = 9.1 × 10^–5; r_Human = 0.74, p = 1.5 × 10^–3). In conclusion, the results suggest that the proposed GARDskin dose–response methodology provides a novel non-animal approach for quantitative potency assessment, which could represent an important step towards reducing the need for in vivo experiments.

Critical Evaluation of Low-Molecular Weight Respiratory Sensitizers and Their Protein Reactivity Potential Toward Lysine Residues

Interest in the development of methods to evaluate the respiratory sensitization potential of low-molecular weight chemicals continues, but no method has yet been generally accepted or validated. A lack of chemical reference standards, together with uncertainty regarding relevant immunological mechanisms, has hampered method development. The first key event in the development of either skin or respiratory sensitization is the formation of stable adducts of the chemical with host proteins. This event is measured in the Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay using cysteine- and lysine-containing model peptides. It is hypothesized that protein reactivity and subsequent adduct formation may represent the earliest point of divergence in the pathways leading to either skin or respiratory sensitization. Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay data for 200 chemicals were compiled and grouped into respiratory, skin and nonsensitizers. Chemicals grouping was based on extensive literature research and expert judgment. To evaluate if chemical groups represent different peptide reactivity profiles, peptide reactivity data were clustered and compared with information on protein binding mechanisms and chemical categories available via the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Toolbox. Respiratory sensitizers (n = 15) showed a significant (3-fold) higher lysine reactivity than skin sensitizers (n = 129). However, this difference was driven largely by the high representation of acid anhydrides among the respiratory sensitizers that showed clear lysine selectivity. Collectively, these data suggest that preferential reactivity for either cysteine or lysine is associated primarily with chemical structure, and that lysine preference is not a unifying characteristic of chemical respiratory allergens.

A direct peptide reactivity assay using a high-throughput mass spectrometry screening platform for detection of skin sensitizers

Chemical-peptide conjugation is the molecular initiating event in skin sensitization. The OECD test guideline uses a high-performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet (HPLC/UV) detection method to quantify chemical-peptide conjugation in a direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), which measures the depletion of two synthetic peptides containing lysine or cysteine residues. To improve assay throughput, sensitivity and accuracy, an automated 384-well plate-based RapidFire solid-phase extraction (SPE) system coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) DPRA was developed and validated in the presence of a newly designed internal standard. Compared to the HPLC/UV-based DPRA, the automated SPE-MS/MS-based DPRA improved throughput from 16 min to 10 s per sample, and substrate peptides usage was reduced from 100 mM to 5 μM. When implementing the SPE-MS/MS-based DPRA into a high-throughput platform, we found 10 compounds that depleted lysine peptide and 24 compounds that depleted cysteine peptide (including 7 unreported chemicals from 55 compounds we tested) in a concentration-response manner. The adduct formation between cysteine and cinnamic aldehyde and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate were further analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry (HPLC-TOF-MS) to confirm the conjugation. Overall, the automated SPE-MS/MS-based platform is an efficient, economic, and accurate way to detect skin sensitizers.

The activity of methacrylate esters in skin sensitisation test methods II. A review of complementary and additional analyses

Allergic contact dermatitis is an important occupational health issue, and there is a need to identify accurately those chemicals that have the potential to induce skin sensitisation. Hazard identification was performed initially using animal (guinea pig and mouse) models. More recently, as a result of the drive towards non-animal methods, alternative in vitro and in silico approaches have been developed. Some of these new in vitro methods have been formally validated and have been assigned OECD Test Guideline status. The performance of some of these recently developed in vitro methods, and of 2 quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) approaches, with a series of methacrylate esters has been reviewed and reported previously. In this article that first review has been extended further with additional data and complementary analyses. Results obtained using in vitro methods (Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay, DPRA; ARE-Nrf2 luciferase test methods, KeratinoSens and LuSens; Epidermal Sensitisation Assay, EpiSensA; human Cell Line Activation Test, h-CLAT, and the myeloid U937 Skin Sensitisation test, U-SENS), and 2 QSAR approaches (DEREK™-nexus and TIMES-SS), with 11 methacrylate esters and methacrylic acid are reported here, and compared with existing data from the guinea pig maximisation test and the local lymph node assay. With this series of chemicals it was found that some in vitro tests (DPRA and ARE-Nrf2 luciferase) performed well in comparison with animal test results and available human skin sensitisation data. Other in vitro tests (EpiSensA and h-CLAT) proved rather more problematic. Results with DEREK™-nexus and TIMES-SS failed to reflect accurately the skin sensitisation potential of the methacrylate esters. The implications for assessment of skin sensitising activity are discussed.

Human-Derived In Vitro Models Used for Skin Toxicity Testing Under REACh

In regulatory toxicology, in vivo studies are still prevailing, and human-derived in vitro models are mostly used in testing for local toxicity to the skin and the eyes. A single in vitro model may be limited to address one or few molecular or cellular events leading to adverse outcomes. Hence, in many instances their regulatory use involves the combination of several in vitro models to assess the hazard potential of test substance. A so-called defined approach combines different testing methods and a 'data interpretation procedure' to obtain a comprehensive overall assessment which is used for the regulatory hazard classification of the test substance.Validation is a prerequisite of regulatory acceptance of new testing methods: This chapter provides an overview of the method development from an experimental method to a test guideline via application of GIVIMP (good in vitro method practice), standardization, validation to the regulatory adoption as an OECD test guidelines. Quandaries associated with the validation towards reference data from in vivo animal studies with limited accuracy and limited human relevance are discussed, as well as uncertainty and limitations arising from restricted applicability and technical and biological variance of the in vitro methods.This chapter provides an overview of human-derived in vitro models currently adopted as OECD test guidelines: From the first skin corrosion tests utilizing reconstructed human epidermis models (RhE), to models to test for skin irritation, phototoxicity, eye irritation, and skin sensitization. The latter is using a battery of different methods and defined approaches which are still under discussion for their regulatory adoption. They will be a vanguard of future applications of human-derived models in regulatory toxicology. RhEs for testing of genotoxicity and of dermal penetration and absorption, have been developed, underwent validation studies and may soon be adopted for regulatory use; these are included in this chapter.

Building confidence in skin sensitisation potency assessment using new approach methodologies: report of the 3rd EPAA Partners Forum, Brussels, 28th October 2019

Skin sensitising substances that induce contact allergy and consequently risk elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) remain an important focus regarding the replacement of animal experimentation. Current in vivo methods, notably the local lymph node assay (LLNA) refined and reduced animal usage and led to a marked improvement in hazard identification, characterisation and risk assessment. Since validation, regulatory confidence in the LLNA approach has evolved until it became the first choice assay in most regulated sectors. Currently, hazard identification using the LLNA is being actively replaced by a toolbox of non-animal approaches. However, there remains a need to increase confidence in the use of new approach methodologies (NAMs) as replacements for LLNA sensitiser potency estimation. The EPAA Partners Forum exchanged the current state of knowledge on use of NAMs in various industry sectors and regulatory environments. They then debated current challenges in this area and noted several ongoing needs. These included a requirement for reference standards for potency, better characterisation of applicability domains/technical limitations of NAMs, development of a framework for weight of evidence assessments, and an increased confidence in the characterisation of non-sensitisers. Finally, exploration of an industry/regulator cross-sector user-forum on skin sensitisation was recommended.

Application of the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) to inorganic compounds: a case study of platinum species

The in chemico Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) was developed as a non-animal, relatively high throughput, screening tool for skin sensitization potential. Although the Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) for respiratory sensitization remains to be fully elucidated, it is recognized that the molecular initiation event for both skin and respiratory sensitization to low molecular weight chemicals involves haptenation with proteins. The DPRA examines the reactivity of a test compound to two model peptides (containing either cysteine or lysine) and consequently is able to screen for both skin and respiratory sensitization potential. The DPRA was primarily developed for and validated with organic compounds and assessment of the applicability of the assay to metal compounds has received only limited attention. This paper reports the successful application of the DPRA to a series of platinum compounds, including hexachloroplatinate and tetrachloroplatinate salts, which are some of the most potent chemical respiratory sensitizers known. Eleven platinum compounds were evaluated using the DPRA protocol as detailed by Lalko et al., with only minor modification. Two palladium compounds with structures similar to that of the platinum species studied and cobalt chloride were additionally tested for comparison. The hexachloroplatinate and tetrachloroplatinate salts showed exceptionally high reactivity with the cysteine peptide (EC₁₅ values of 1.4 and 14 μM, respectively). However, for platinum compounds (e.g. hydrogen hexahydroxyplatinate and tetraammineplatinum) where clinical and epidemiological evidence indicates limited sensitization potential, the cysteine DPRA showed only minor or no reactivity (EC₁₅ values of 24 600 and >30 000 μM, respectively). The outcomes of the lysine peptide assays were less robust and where EC₁₅ was measurable, values were substantially higher than the corresponding results from the cysteine assay. This work supports the value of in chemico peptide reactivity as a metric for assessment of platinum sensitization potential and therefore in screening of new platinum compounds for low or absent sensitization potential. Additional studies are required to determine whether the DPRA may be successfully applied to other metals. We provide details on method modifications and precautions important to the success of the DPRA in the assessment of metal reactivity.

Applying non-animal strategies for assessing skin sensitisation report from an EPAA/cefic-LRI/IFRA Europe cross sector workshop, ECHA helsinki, February 7th and 8th 2019

Four years on since the last cross sector workshop, experience of the practical application and interpretation of several non-animal assays that contribute to the predictive identification of skin sensitisers has begun to accumulate. Non-animal methods used for hazard assessments increasingly are contributing to the potency sub-categorisation for regulatory purposes. However, workshop participants generally supported the view that there remained a pressing need to build confidence in how information from multiple methods can be combined for classification, sub-categorisation and potency assessment. Furthermore, the practical experience gained over the last few years, highlighted the overall high potential value of using the newly validated methods and testing strategies, but also that limitations for certain substance/product classes may become evident with further use as had been the case with other new regulatory methods. As the available information increases, review of the data and collated experience could further determine strengths and limitations leading to more confidence in their use. Finally, the need for a substantial and universally accepted dataset of non-sensitisers and substances of different sensitising potencies, based on combined human and in vivo animal data for validation of methods and test strategies was re-emphasised.

The 21st Century movement within the area of skin sensitization assessment: From the animal context towards current human-relevant in vitro solutions

In a regulatory context, skin sensitization hazard and risk evaluations of manufactured products and their ingredients (e.g. cosmetics) are mandatory in several regions. Great efforts have been made within the field of 21st Century Toxicology to provide non-animal testing approaches to assess the skin allergy potential of materials (e.g. chemicals, mixtures, nanomaterials, particles). Mechanistic understanding of skin sensitization process through the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) has promoted the development of in vitro methods, demonstrating accuracies superior to the traditional animal testing. These in vitro testing approaches are based on one of the four AOP key events (KE) of skin sensitization: formation of immunogenic hapten-protein complexes (KE-1 or the molecular initiating event, MIE), inflammatory keratinocyte responses (KE-2), dendritic cell activation (KE-3), and T-lymphocyte activation and proliferation (KE-4). This update provides an overview of the historically used in vivo methods as well as the current in chemico and in cell methods with and without OECD guideline designations to analyze the progress towards human-relevant in vitro test methods for safety assessment of the skin allergenicity potential of materials. Here our focus is to review 96 in vitro testing approaches directed to the KEs of the skin sensitization AOP.

Skin sensitizing effects of sulfur mustard and other alkylating agents in accordance to OECD guidelines

Vesicants cause a multitude of cutaneous reactions like erythema, blisters and ulcerations. After exposure to sulfur mustard (SM) and related compounds, patients present dermal symptoms typically known for chemicals categorized as skin sensitizer (e.g. hypersensitivity and flare-up phenomena). However, although some case reports led to the assumption that SM and other alkylating compounds represent sensitizers, a comprehensive investigation of SM-triggered immunological responses has not been conducted so far. Based on a well-structured system of in chemico and in vitro test methods, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) established procedures to categorize agents on their skin sensitizing abilities. In this study, the skin sensitizing potential of SM and three related alkylating agents (AAs) was assessed following the OECD test guidelines. Besides SM, investigated AAs were chlorambucil (CHL), nitrogen mustard (HN3) and 2-chloroethyl ethyl sulfide (CEES). The methods are described in detail in the EURL ECVAM DataBase service on ALternative Methods to animal experimentation (DB-ALM). In accordance to OECD recommendations, skin sensitization is a pathophysiological process starting with a molecular initiating step and ending with the in vivo outcome of an allergic contact dermatitis. This concept is called adverse outcome pathway (AOP). An AOP links an adverse outcome to various key events which can be assayed by established in chemico and in vitro test methods. Positive outcome in two out of three key events indicates that the chemical can be categorized as a skin sensitizer. In this study, key event 1 "haptenation" (covalent modification of epidermal proteins), key event 2 "activation of epidermal keratinocytes" and key event 3 "activation of dendritic cells" were investigated. Covalent modification of epidermal proteins measured by using the DPRA-assay provided distinct positive results for all tested substances. Same outcome was seen in the KeratinoSens assay, investigating the activation of epidermal keratinocytes. The h-CLAT assay performed to determine the activation of dendritic cells provided positive results for SM and CEES but not for CHL and HN3. Altogether, following OECD requirements, our results suggest the classification of all investigated substances as skin sensitizers. Finally, a tentative AOP for SM-induced skin sensitization is suggested.

Skin sensitization: Uncertainties, challenges, and opportunities for improved risk assessment

At the ESCD congress held in Manchester in 2016, a session was organized to encourage more dialogue between clinicians with expertise in skin sensitization and toxicologists seeking to provide effective risk assessment to prevent human health issues. That session focused on the remaining uncertainties regarding the induction and regulation of skin sensitization in humans, and the opportunities and challenges associated with the refinement and improvement of risk assessment methodologies. This short article, prompted by those discussions, debates what the authors regard as being among the most important and most intriguing uncertainties about skin sensitization and allergic contact dermatitis in humans, and the most significant opportunities for improving risk assessment. The aim has been to provide a basis for mapping out the areas that might benefit from a closer alignment between the relevant clinical community and toxicologists charged with the responsibility of ensuring that skin sensitization risks are understood and managed.

A highly sensitive and selective high pressure liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS-MS) method for the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA)

While the HPLC/UV (high performance liquid chromatography coupled with ultra-violet spectrometry)-based DPRA (Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay) identifies dermal sensitizers with approximately 80% accuracy, the low selectivity and sensitivity of the HPLC/UV-based DPRA poses challenges to accurately identify the sensitization potential of certain chemicals. In this study, a high performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS-MS)-based DPRA was developed and validated according to the test guideline (OECD TG 442C). The final results were compared with the results from the traditional HPLC/UV-based guideline DPRA. This HPLC/MS-MS-based DPRA demonstrated similar performance compared to HPLC/UV-based DPRA using known dermal sensitizers and non-sensitizers according to the test guideline (OECD TG 442C). Following the validation, a challenge set of chemicals with either overlapping retention time with peptides, or higher hydrophobicity or chemicals potentially forming non-covalent interactions with peptides were assessed for dermal sensitization potential using both methods and the results were compared to existing in vivo data. The HPLC/MS-MS-based DPRA correctly predicted these chemicals as sensitizers or non-sensitizers; however, the HPLC/UV-based DPRA resulted in false-positive predictions for hydrophobic substances, chemicals with UV peaks overlapping with those of the peptide(s), and compounds that non-covalently interact with the peptides. These findings demonstrate the broader applicability and better sensitivity and selectivity of the LC/MS-MS-based DPRA over the traditional HPLC/UV-based guideline DPRA.