Olive oil: suitability for use as a vehicle in the local lymph node assay

The LLNA: A Brief Review of Recent Advances and Limitations

Allergic contact dermatitis is the second most commonly reported occupational illness, accounting for 10% to 15% of all occupational diseases. This highlights the importance of developing rapid and sensitive methods for hazard identification of chemical sensitizers. The murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) was developed and validated for the identification of low molecular weight sensitizing chemicals. It provides several benefits over other tests for sensitization because it provides a quantitative endpoint, dose-responsive data, and allows for prediction of potency. However, there are also several concerns with this assay including: levels of false positive responses, variability due to vehicle, and predictivity. This report serves as a concise review which briefly summarizes the progress, advances and limitations of the assay over the last decade.

Brown Norway rat asthma model of diphenylmethane-4,4'-diisocyanate (MDI): impact of vehicle for topical induction

The development of this Brown Norway (BN) rat asthma model was focused on the duplication of at least some hallmarks of human diisocyanate asthma using the skin as the initial priming route of exposure. Equal total doses of polymeric diphenylmethane-diisocyanate (MDI) were applied to similar surface areas either dissolved in di-n-octyl sebacic acid ester (20%) (SEBA), in acetone:olive oil (20%) (AOO) or undiluted. The elicitation of respiratory allergy utilized four repeated nose-only inhalation challenges of 30 min with 39 mg/m(3) MDI-aerosol approximately every 2 weeks. Emphasis was directed towards the analysis of respiratory responses delayed in onset. Endpoints suggestive of an allergic inflammatory response were examined by bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) 1 day after the last inhalation challenge and comprised protein, LDH, cytodifferentiation of BAL cells, MCP-1, and some Th1 and Th2 cytokines. MCP-1 and cytokines were comparatively determined in three compartments: BAL fluid, BAL cells, and lung-associated lymph nodes (LALN). In all groups sensitized topically to MDI typical delayed-onset respiratory responses occurred. The lung and LALN weights, BAL-protein and -LDH were significantly increased as compared to the naïve control group challenged identically. There was compelling evidence of a neutrophilic rather than an eosinophilic inflammatory response. The patterns of interleukin (IL) IL-1alpha, TNF-alpha, IFN-gamma, GM-CSF, and IL-4 differed appreciably from one compartment to another and were essentially maximal in BAL cells. In contrast, MCP-1 was increased to the same extent in all compartments measured. Collectively, changes were slightly, although consistently more pronounced when using SEBA as vehicle when compared with the vehicle AOO or undiluted MDI. Notable was a discordance of cytokine profiles and respiratory responses. In conclusion, the priming potency of topically administered MDI and subsequent asthma-like responses following repeated inhalation exposures appear to be dependent on multiple factors, one of them appears to be associated with the type of matrix used to dissolve MDI. This animal model provides a versatile and robust experimental tool to evaluate and assess at least some features of MDI-related asthma.

The local lymph node assay: past, present and future

The local lymph node assay (LLNA) was developed originally as a method for the identification of chemicals that have the potential to cause skin sensitization and allergic contact dermatitis. The assay is based on an understanding that the acquisition of contact sensitization is associated with, and dependent upon, the stimulation by chemical allergens of lymphocyte proliferative responses in skin-draining lymph nodes. Those chemicals that provoke a defined level of lymph node cell (LNC) proliferation (a 3-fold or greater increase compared with concurrent vehicle controls) are classified as skin sensitizers. Following its original inception and development, the LLNA was the subject of both national and international interlaboratory collaborative trials, and of very detailed comparisons with other test methods and with human skin sensitization data. The assay has now been validated fully as a stand-alone test for the purposes of hazard identification. In recent years, there has been a growing interest also in the use of the LLNA to assess the potency of contact allergens and in risk assessment. There is reason to believe that the extent of skin sensitization achieved is associated with the vigour of LNC proliferation induced in draining nodes. Given this relationship, the relative potency of skin sensitizing chemicals is measured in the LLNA by derivation of an EC3 value, this being the concentration of chemical required to provoke a 3-fold increase in the proliferation of LNC compared with controls. Experience to date indicates that relative potency as determined using this approach correlates closely with what is known of the activity of skin sensitizing chemicals in humans. In this article, we review the development, evaluation and validation of the LLNA for the purposes of hazard identification, and the more recent application of the method for evaluation of potency in the context of risk assessment. In addition, we consider what new applications and modifications are currently being investigated.

Local lymph node assay: use in hazard and risk assessment

The murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) was developed as an alternative method for the identification of chemicals that have the ability to cause skin sensitization and allergic contact dermatitis. The assay now has been evaluated extensively in the context of both national and international inter-laboratory collaborative trials and has been the subject of detailed comparisons with guinea pig test methods and human skin sensitization data. On the basis of these evaluations the LLNA has been endorsed recently by the US Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) as a stand-alone method for skin sensitization testing. The assay offers a number of important benefits compared with conventional guinea pig test methods, among these being provision of an objective and quantitative endpoint. Moreover, the LLNA provides advantages in the context of animal welfare; compared with guinea pig tests, fewer animals are required and these animals are subject to less trauma. It is important now that the validation status of the LLNA is recognized and the method applied widely so that these advantages may be realized. Hazard identification represents only the first step in the risk assessment process. A full toxicological evaluation of skin sensitization activity requires an understanding of relative potency. Guinea pig methods do not lend themselves readily to assessment of potency, and interest recently has focused on the utility of the LLNA for this purpose. Contained within this review article are brief descriptions of the history of the LLNA and the immunobiological basis for the method, together with detailed accounts of the conduct and interpretation of the assay. Procedural modifications to, and alternative endpoints for, the LLNA are considered also. Finally, the current regulatory status of the LLNA is summarized and the application of the method for the purposes of defining relative potency and developing risk assessments is reviewed.

Strategies for identifying false positive responses in predictive skin sensitization tests

It is important that predictive toxicological test methods are selective for their intended endpoint and that their limitations are understood and acknowledged. The local lymph node assay (LLNA) is a relatively new predictive test for skin sensitization potential that can replace traditional guinea pig tests and offers significant scientific and animal welfare advantages. However, there has been some concern that certain irritant materials may yield false positive results, although it must be emphasized that false positives also occur in guinea pig methods. Consequently, we have examined the performance in the LLNA of a range of skin irritants, from varying chemical classes and covering a range of irritation potency. The results presented here demonstrate clearly that the majority of skin irritants are negative in the LLNA. These results are reviewed in the context of the occurrence of false positive reactions in the guinea pig maximization test and the strategies for dealing with such results are discussed. The need for careful scientific evaluation of the results in all predictive tests for sensitization is thus emphasized. In terms of specificity, the LLNA has been more fully evaluated than other predictive test methods and is at least as accurate. In terms of animal welfare, objectivity, reproducibility and reliability it is superior to other methods. In summary, all predictive skin sensitization test results should be evaluated in a scientifically rigorous manner and the additional data provided herein further support the adoption of the LLNA as a complete replacement for the traditional guinea pig methods.