Applicability of ADRA (4 mM) for the prediction of skin sensitization by combining multiple alternative methods to evaluate key events

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) is an alternative method for evaluating key event 1 (KE-1) in the skin sensitization mechanism included in OECD TG442C. Recently, we found that ADRA with a 4-mM test chemical solution had a higher accuracy than the original ADRA (1 mM). However, ADRA (4 mM) has yet to be evaluated using Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA), a combination of alternative methods for evaluating Key-event. In this study, the sensitization potency of three Defined Approach (DA) using ADRA (4 mM) as KE-1 was predicted and compared with those of two additional ADRAs or DPRA: (i) "2 out of 3" approach, (ii) "3 out of 3" approach,, and (iii) ITS. In the hazard identification of chemical sensitizers, the accuracy of human data and LLNA remained almost unchanged among the three approaches evaluated. Potency classifications for sensitization were predicted with the LLNA and human datasets using ITS. The potency classifications for the sensitization potency prediction accuracy of LLNA data using any alternative method were almost unchanged, at approximately 70%, and those with ITS were not significantly different. When ITS was performed using DPRA, the prediction accuracy was approximately 73% for human data, which was similar to that of the LLNA data; however, the accuracy tended to increase for all ADRA methods. In particular, when ITS was performed using ADRA (4 mM), the prediction accuracy was approximately 78%, which proved to be a practical level.

A convenient fluorometric test method for skin sensitization using glutathione in chemico

A convenient fluorometrical test method to identify skin sensitizers in chemico was developed using reactivity with glutathione (GSH), a low molecular weight endogenous substance. Following incubation of test chemicals with GSH, the remaining GSH was quantitated fluorometrically by using monobromobimane (mBBr), a thiol-detecting agent, for determining % depletion of this endogenous substance by test chemicals. The experimental conditions optimized were: (1) reactivity of thiol compounds including GSH with mBBr, (2) effects of vehicles on reactivity, (3) molar ratios of GSH to test chemicals, and (4) reactivity of endogenous substance with test substances under different incubation times. When an optimized condition with DMSO as a vehicle for test chemicals and in 1:60 ratio for 24 hr at 4°C was applied to classify 48 well-known skin sensitizers and non-sensitizers, the predictive capacity was as follows: 88.2% sensitivity, 78.6% specificity, and 85.4% accuracy with 95.8% consistency of three trials when 10.3% depletion of GSH was used as a cutoff value. Because the present method employed relatively simple GSH as an acceptor for sensitizers and/or a relatively convenient fluorometric detection system in 96-well plates for a high throughput test, it would be a useful test tool for screening skin sensitization potential of test chemicals.

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.

Amino acid derivative reactivity assay-organic solvent reaction system: A novel alternative test for skin sensitization capable of assessing highly hydrophobic substances

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) is an in chemico alternative to animal testing that focuses on protein binding. The ADRA is a skin sensitization test that solves problems associated with the direct peptide reactivity assay. However, when utilizing the ADRA to evaluate highly hydrophobic substances with octanol/water partition coefficients (logKow) of >6, the test substances may not dissolve in the reaction solution, which can prevent the accurate assessment of skin sensitization. Therefore, we developed the ADRA-organic solvent (ADRA-OS) reaction system, which is a novel skin sensitization test that enables the assessment of highly hydrophobic substances with a logKow of >6. We discovered that the organic solvent ratio, the triethylamine concentration, and the ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dihydrate concentration participate in reactions with the nucleophile N-(2-(1-naphthyl)acetyl)-l-cysteine (NAC) and sensitizers that are used in ADRA and in stabilizing NAC. Thus, we determined the optimal reaction composition of the ADRA-OS according to L₉ (3³ ) orthogonal array experiments. Using this test, we assessed 14 types of highly hydrophobic substances. When we compared the results with ADRA, we found that ADRA-OS reaction system has high solubility for highly hydrophobic substances and that it has a high predictive capacity (sensitivity: 63%, specificity: 100%, accuracy: 79%). The implication of the results is that the novel ADRA-OS reaction system should provide a useful method for assessing the skin sensitization of highly hydrophobic substances with a logKow of >6.

Improving predictive capacity of the Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay test method for skin sensitization potential with an optimal molar concentration of test chemical solution

The Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay (ADRA) is a convenient and effective in chemico test method for assessing covalent binding of test chemicals with protein-derived nucleophilic reagents as a means of predicting skin sensitization potential. Although the original molar-concentration approach to ADRA testing was not suitable for testing multiconstituent substances of an unknown composition, a weight-concentration approach that is suitable for such substances was developed, which also led to the realization that test chemical solutions prepared to molar concentrations higher than the original 1 mM would reduce false negative results as well as enhance predictive capacity. The present study determined an optimal molar-concentration that achieves even higher predictive capacity than the original ADRA. Eight chemicals that were false negatives when tested with 1 mM test chemical solutions were retested with test chemical solutions between 2 and 5 mM, which showed 4 mM to be the optimal molar-concentration for ADRA testing. When 82 chemicals used in the original development were retested with 4 mM test chemical solutions, false negative results were reduced by four. When an additional 85 chemicals used to evaluate the weight-concentration approach to ADRA were retested, the results essentially replicated those obtained with 0.5 mg/ml test chemical solutions and gave 10 fewer false negatives than original ADRA with 1 mM solutions. A comparison of these results for 136 chemicals showed that ADRA testing with 4 mM solutions achieved a four percentage point improvement in accuracy over original ADRA and a two percentage point improvement over DPRA testing.

Oxidation of a cysteine-derived nucleophilic reagent by dimethyl sulfoxide in the amino acid derivative reactivity assay

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA), which is an in chemico alternative to the use of animals in testing for skin sensitization potential, offers significant advantages over the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) in that it utilizes nucleophilic reagents that are sensitive enough to be used with test chemical solutions prepared to concentrations of 1 mm, which is one-hundredth that of DPRA. ADRA testing of hydrophobic or other poorly soluble compounds requires that they be dissolved in a solvent consisting of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and acetonitrile. DMSO is known to promote dimerization by oxidizing thiols, which then form disulfide bonds. We investigated the extent to which DMSO oxidizes the cysteine-derived nucleophilic reagents used in both DPRA and ADRA and found that oxidation of both N-(2-(1-naphthyl)acetyl)-l-cysteine (NAC) and cysteine peptide increases as the concentration of DMSO increases, thereby lowering the concentration of the nucleophilic reagent. We also found that use of a solvent consisting of 5% DMSO in acetonitrile consistently lowered NAC concentrations by about 0.4 μm relative to the use of solvents containing no DMSO. We also tested nine sensitizers and four nonsensitizers having different sensitization potencies to compare NAC depletion with and without 5% DMSO and found that reactivity was about the same with either solvent. Based on the above, we conclude that the use of a solvent containing 5% DMSO has no effect on the accuracy of ADRA test results. We plan to review and propose revisions to OECD Test Guideline 442C based on the above investigation.

Comparison of in chemico skin sensitization methods and development of an in chemico skin photosensitization assay

Chemical substances that induce an allergic response in skin upon contact are called skin allergens or sensitizers, while chemical substances that elicit an allergic response only in presence of light are called photoallergens or photo sensitizers. The Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA, OECD N⁰ 442C, 2015) and the Amino Acid Derivative Reactivity Assay (ADRA) are in chemico assays used to discriminate between allergens and non-allergens. The DPRA and the ADRA, respectively, monitor the depletion of model peptides and modified amino acids induced by crosslinking with test chemicals. In the current study we compared these two assays and analyzed their suitability to predict skin sensitization potential of several chemical substances.  In order to study the combined effect of a chemical compound and UV light, we modified DPRA (photo-DPRA) as well as ADRA (photo-ADRA) by introduction of a photo-irradiation parameter. Analysis using photo-DPRA and photo-ADRA correctly distinguished known photoallergens from non-photoallergens. Upon irradiation, photoallergens selectively showed higher depletion of model peptides or modified amino acids. Thus, photo-DPRA and/or photo-ADRA can serve as non-animal in vitro methods for the identification and assessment of photoallergens/ photosensitizers.

Methyl methacrylate and respiratory sensitization: a critical review

Methyl methacrylate (MMA) is a respiratory irritant and dermal sensitizer that has been associated with occupational asthma in a small number of case reports. Those reports have raised concern that it might be a respiratory sensitizer. To better understand that possibility, we reviewed the in silico, in chemico, in vitro, and in vivo toxicology literature, and also epidemiologic and occupational medicine reports related to the respiratory effects of MMA. Numerous in silico and in chemico studies indicate that MMA is unlikely to be a respiratory sensitizer. The few in vitro studies suggest that MMA has generally weak effects. In vivo studies have documented contact skin sensitization, nonspecific cytotoxicity, and weakly positive responses on local lymph node assay; guinea pig and mouse inhalation sensitization tests have not been performed. Cohort and cross-sectional worker studies reported irritation of eyes, nose, and upper respiratory tract associated with short-term peaks exposures, but little evidence for respiratory sensitization or asthma. Nineteen case reports described asthma, laryngitis, or hypersensitivity pneumonitis in MMA-exposed workers; however, exposures were either not well described or involved mixtures containing more reactive respiratory sensitizers and irritants. The weight of evidence, both experimental and observational, argues that MMA is not a respiratory sensitizer.