Peptide reactivity assays for skin sensitisation – scope and limitations

References

• Api AM, Basketter D, Bridges J, Cadby P, Ellis G, Gilmour N, Greim H, Griem P, Kern P, Khaiat A, et al. 2020. Updating exposure assessment for skin sensitization quantitative risk assessment for fragrance materials. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 118:104805.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Api AM, Basketter DA, Cadby PA, Cano M-F, Ellis G, Gerberick GF, Griem P, McNamee PM, Ryan CA, Safford R. 2008. Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 52(1):3–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aptula AO, Roberts DW. 2006. Mechanistic applicability domains for nonanimal-based prediction of toxicological end points: general principles and application to reactive toxicity. Chem Res Toxicol. 19(8):1097–1105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I. 2007. The local lymph node assay: current position in the regulatory classification of skin sensitizing chemicals. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 26(4):293–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergström MA, Luthman K, Nilsson LG, Karlberg A-T. 2006. Conjugated dienes as prohaptens in contact allergy: in vivo and in vitro studies of structure-activity relationships, sensitizing capacity, and metabolic activation. Chem Res Toxicol. 19(6):760–769.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dearman RJ, Basketter DA, Kimber I. 1999. Local lymph node assay: use in hazard and risk assessment. J Appl Toxicol. 19(5):299–306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimitrov S, Detroyer A, Piroird C, Gomes C, Eilstein J, Pauloin T, Kuseva C, Ivanova H, Popova I, Karakolev Y, et al. 2016. Accounting for data variability, a key factor in in vivo/in vitro relationships: application to the skin sensitization potency (in vivo LLNA versus in vitro DPRA) example. J Appl Toxicol. 36(12):1568–1578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kern PS, Schlatter H, Dearman RJ, Kimber I, Patlewicz GY, Basketter DA. 2005. Compilation of historical local lymph node data for evaluation of skin sensitization alternative methods. Dermatitis. 16(4):157–202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansch C, Leo AJ. 1979. Substituent constants for correlation analysis in chemistry and biology. New York: Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Natsch A, Haupt T, Laue H. 2011. Relating skin sensitizing potency to chemical reactivity: reactive Michael acceptors inhibit NF-κB signaling and are less sensitizing than SNAr- and SN2-reactive chemicals. Chem Res Toxicol. 24(11):2018–2027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natsch A, Haupt T, Wareing B, Landsiedel R, Kolle SN. 2020. Predictivity of the kinetic direct peptide reactivity assay (kDPRA) for sensitizer potency assessment and GHS subclassification. ALTEX. 37(4):652–664.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Natsch A, Ryan CA, Foertsch L, Emter R, Jaworska J, Gerberick F, Kern P. 2013. A dataset on 145 chemicals tested in alternative assays for skin sensitization undergoing prevalidation. J Appl Tox. 33:1337–1352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. 2010. Testing guideline 429, 429A, 429B. Skin sensitization: the local lymph node assay. updated guideline. Paris (France): Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2021a. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, Section 4: health effects test no. 442C: in chemico skin sensitisation assays addressing the adverse outcome pathway key event on covalent binding to proteins. Appendix III. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264229709-en
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2021b. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). No. 497. Guideline on defined approaches for skin sensitisation. Paris (France): OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts DW. 2021a. A critical review of the kinetic direct peptide reactivity assay (kDPRA) for skin sensitizer potency assessment – taking it forward. Crit Rev Toxicol. 51(10):805–819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts DW. 2021b. Interpretation of murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) data for skin sensitization: overload effects, danger signals and chemistry-based read-across. Curr Res Toxicol. 2:53–63.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roberts DW, Aptula AO, Api AM. 2017. Structure-potency relationships for epoxides in allergic contact dermatitis. Chem Res Toxicol. 30(2):524–531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts DW, Natsch A. 2009. High throughput kinetic profiling approach for covalent binding to peptides: application to skin sensitization potency of Michael acceptor electrophiles. Chem Res Toxicol. 22(3):592–603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan CA, Chaney JG, Gerberick GF, Kern PS, Dearman RJ, Kimber I, Basketter DA. 2007. Extrapolating Local Lymph Node Assay EC3 values to estimate relative sensitizing potency. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 26(2):135–145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). 2021. Globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS Rev. 9). https://unece.org/transport/standards/transport/dangerous-goods/ghs-rev9-2021.
   Google Scholar
• Wareing B, Kolle SN, Birk B, Alépée N, Haupt T, Kathawala R, Kern PS, Nardelli L, Raabe H, Rucki M, et al. 2020. The kinetic direct peptide reactivity assay (kDPRA): intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility in a seven-laboratory ring trial. ALTEX. 37:639–651.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wareing B, Urbisch D, Kolle SN, Honarvar N, Sauer UG, Mehling A, Landsiedel R. 2017. Prediction of skin sensitization potency sub-categories using peptide reactivity data. Toxicol In Vitro. 45(Pt 1):134–145.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar