The local lymph node assay compared with the human maximization test as an indicator of allergic potency in humans using patch test clinic populations

References

• Schneider K, Akkan Z. Quantitative relationship between local lymph node assay and human skin sensitization assays. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2004; 39:245–255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt MD, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF Jr, Fransway A.F, Maibach HI, Marks JG, Toby Mathias CG, Rietschel RL, Sasseville D, Sheretz EF, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS, Zug K. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch—Test Results, 2001–2002 Study Period. Dermatitis. 2004; 15(4):176–183.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Uter W, Hegewald J, Aberer W, Ayala F, Bircher AJ, Brasch J, Coenraads PJ, Schuttelaar MLA, Elsner P, Fartasch M, Mahler V, Belloni Fortina A, Frosch PJ, Fuchs T, Johansen JD, Menne T, Jolanki R, Krecisz B, Kiec-Swierczynska M, Larese F, Orton D, Preserico A, Rantanen T, Schnuch A. The European standard series in 9 European countries, 2002/2003—first results of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies. Contact Dermatitis. 2005; 53:136–145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kligman AM. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. II. Factors influencing the induction and measurement of allergic contact dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol. 1966; 47:375–392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirshahpanah P, Maibach HI. Relationship of patch test positivity in a general versus an eczema population. Contact Dermatitis. 2007; 56:125–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Andersen KE, Liden C, Van Loveren H, Boman A, Kimber I, Alanko K, Berggren E. Evaluation of the skin sensitizing potency of chemicals by using the existing methods and considerations of relevance for elicitation. Contact Dermatitis. 2005; 52:39–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen SH, Dang TP, MacPherson C, Maibach HI. Prevalence of patch test results from 1970 to 2002 in a multi-centre population in North America (NACDG). Contact Dermatitis. 2008; 58(2):101–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Scholes EW, Kimber I. The performance of the local lymph node assay with chemicals identified as contact allergens in the human maximization test. Food Chem Toxicol. 1994; 32:543–547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Scholes EW. Comparison of the local lymph node assay with the guinea-pig maximization test for the detection of a range of contact allergens. Food Chem Toxicol. 1992; 30:65–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerberick GF, House RV, Fletcher ER, Ryan CA. Examination of the local lymph node assay for use in contact sensitization risk assessment. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1992; 19:438–445.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ikarashi Y, Tsuchiya T, Nakamura A. Detection of contact sensitivity of metal salts using the murine local lymph node assay. Toxicol Lett. 1992; 62:53–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ikarashi Y, Ohno K, Tsuchiya T, Nakamura A. Differences of draining lymph node cell proliferation among mice, rats and guinea pigs following exposure to metal allergens. Toxicology. 1992; 76:283–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boussiquet-Leroux C, Durand-Cavagna G, Herlin K, Holder D. Evaluation of lymphocyte proliferation by immunohistochemistry in the local lymph node assay. J Appl Toxicol. 1995; 15:465–475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Lea LJ, Basketter DA. Local lymph node assay: validation assessment for regulatory purposes. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 2000; 11:3–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Basketter DA, Lea LJ, Dickens A, Briggs D, Pate I, Dearman RJ, Kimber I. 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ikarashi Y, Tsukamoto Y, Tsuchiya T, Nakamura A. Influence of irritants on lymph node cell proliferation and the detection of contact sensitivity to metal salts in the murine local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis. 1993; 29:128–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimber I, Weisenberger C. Anamnestic responses to contact allergens: applications in the murine local lymph node assay. J Appl Toxicol. 1991; 11:129–133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandervelt C, Clottens FL, Demedts M, Nemery B. Assessment of the sensitization potential of five metal salts in the murine local lymph node assay. Toxicology. 1997;120:65–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Wright ZM, Warbrick EV, Dearman RJ, Kimber I, Ryan CA, Gerberick GF, White IR. Human potency predictions for aldehydes using the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis. 2001; 45:89–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilton J, Dearman RJ, Harvey P, Evans P, Basketter DA, Kimber I. Estimation of relative skin sensitizing potency using the local lymph node assay: a comparison of formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1998; 9:29–33.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sailstad DM, Krishnan SD, Tepper JS, Doerfler DL, Selgrade MK. Dietary vitamin A enhances sensitivity of the local lymph node assay. Toxicology. 1995; 96:157–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Kimber I. Predictive testing in contact allergy: facts and future. Allergy. 2001; 56:937–943.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montelius J, Wahlkvist H, Boman A, Fernström P, Grabergs L, Wahlberg JE. Experience with the murine local lymph node assay: inability to discriminate between allergens and irritants. Acta Derm Venereol. 1994; 74:22–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warbrick EV, Dearman RJ, Lea LJ, Basketter DA, Kimber I. Local lymph node assay responses to paraphenylenediamine: intra- and inter-laboratory evaluations. J Appl Toxicol. 1999; 19:255–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Selbie E, Scholes EW, Lees D, Kimber I, Botham PA. Results with OECD recommended positive control sensitizers in the maximization, Buehler and local lymph node assays. Food Chem Toxicol. 1993; 31:63–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Scholes EW, Wahlkvist H, Montelius J. An evaluation of the suitability of benzocaine as a positive control skin sensitizer. Contact Dermatitis. 1995; 33:28–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimber I, Hilton J, Weisenberger C. The murine local lymph node assay for identification of contact allergens: a preliminary evaluation of in situ measurement of lymphocyte proliferation. Contact Dermatitis. 1989; 21:215–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Och FMM, Slob W, de Jong WH, Vandebriel RJ, van Loveren H. A quantitative method for assessing the sensitizing potency of low molecular weight chemicals using a local lymph node assay: employment of a regression method that includes determination of the uncertainty margins. Toxicology. 2000; 146:49–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Jong WH, Van Och FMM, Den Hartog Jager CF, Spiekstra SW, Slob W, Vandebriel RJ, Van Loveren H. Ranking of allergenic potency of rubber chemicals in a modified local lymph node assay. Toxicol Sci. 2002; 66:226–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholes EW, Basketter DA, Sarll AE, Kimber I, Evans CD, Miller K, Robbins MC, Harrison PT, Waite SJ. The local lymph node assay: results of a final interlaboratory validation under field conditions. J Appl Toxicol. 1992; 12:217–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar