The Local Lymph Node Assay: Current Position in the Regulatory Classification of Skin Sensitizing Chemicals

REFERENCES

• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1992. Guidelines for testing of chemicals No. 406. Skin sensitization, http://www.oecd.org.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2002. Guidelines for testing of chemicals No. 429. Skin sensitization: The local lymph node assay, http://www.oecd.org.
   Google Scholar
• Balls M, Hellsten E. Statement on the validity of the local lymph node assay for skin sensitisation testing. ECVAM Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2000; 28: 366–367.
   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 Cont Derm 2000; 11: 3–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dean JH, Twerdok LE, Tice RR, Sailstad DM, Hattan DG, Stokes WS. ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. II. Conclusions and recommendations of an independent scientific peer review panel. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 2001; 34: 258–273.
   Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I. Strategies for identifying false positive responses in predictive sensitisation tests. Food Chem Toxicol 1998; 36: 327–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Lea L, Cooper K, Ryan CJ, Gerberick GF, Dearman RJ, Kimber I. The identification of metal allergens in the local lymph node assay. Am J Contact Derm 1999; 10: 207–212.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wright ZM, Basketter DA, Dearman RJ, Warbrick EV, Gerberick GF, Kimber I. The local lymph node assay: further comparisons with guinea pig and human sensitization data. Toxicologist 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Cockshott A, Evans P, Gerberick GF, Betts CJ, Dearman RJ, Kimber I, Basketter DA. Use and abuse of the local lymph node assay: a regulatory perspective. Human Exp Toxicol 2006; 25: 387–394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnusson B, Kligman AM. Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Guinea Pig. Identification of Contact Allergens; Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas. 1970.
   Google Scholar
• Buehler EV. Delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Archives of Dermatology 1965; 91: 171–177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimber I, Basketter DA. The murine local lymph node assay; collaborative studies and new directions: A commentary. Food Chem Toxicol 1992; 30: 165–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC,93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Off J Eur Union, L 396/1 of 30.12.2006. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/reach/index_en.htm.
   Google Scholar
• EEC Council Directive 92/32/EEC amending for the seventh time Directive 67/548/EEC Off. J Eur Comm 1992; L154:1–29.
   Google Scholar
• EC Commission Directive 2001/59/EC adapting to technical progress for the 28th time Council directive 67/548/EEC Off. J Eur Comm 2001; L225:1–333.
   Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Wilson K, Gilmour NJ, Ullman L, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Dearman RJ, Kimber I. Utility of historical vehicle control data in the interpretation of the local lymph node assay. Contact Derm 2003; 49: 37–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kern PS, Schlatter H, Dearman RJ, Kimber I, Patlewicz G, Basketter DA. Compilation of historical local lymph node assay data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives. Derm 2005; 16: 157–202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auton TR, Botham PA, Kimber I. Retrospective appraisal of the relationship between skin irritancy and contact sensitisation potential. J Tox Environ Health 1995; 46: 149–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Kan-King-Yu D, Dierkes P, Jowsey IR. Does irritation potency contribute to the skin sensitisation potency of contact allergens? J Cut Ocular Toxicol 2007; 26 (in press).
   Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Selbie E, Scholes EW, Lees D, Kimber I, Botham PA. Results with OECD recommended positive control sensitizers in the maximisation, Buehler and local lymph node assays. Food Chem Toxicol 1993; 31: 63–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dearman RJ, Wright ZM, Basketter DA, Ryan CA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I. The suitability of hexyl cinnamic aldehyde as a calibrant for the using local lymph node assay. Contact Derm 2001; 44: 357–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA. Guinea pig predictive test for contact hypersensitivity. In: Dean J, Munson A, Luster M, Kimber I, eds. Immunotoxicology and Immunopharmacology; New York: Raven Press, 1994:693–702.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan CA, Cruse LW, Skinner RA, Dearman RJ, Kimber I, Gerberick GF. Examination of a vehicle for use with water soluble materials I the murine local lymph node assay. Food Chem Toxicol 2002; 20: 1719–1725.
   Google Scholar
• Woolhiser M, Wiescinki C, Botham P, Lees D, Debruyne E, Repetto-Larsay M, Ladics G, Hoban D, Gamer A, Remmele M, Wang-Fan W, Ullmann L, Billington R, Mehta J. ECPPA interlaboratory study investigating the suitability of an aqueous vehicle in the mouse local lymph node assay. The Toxicologist 2007; suppl to Toxicological Sciences, 237.
   Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Flyvholm MA, Menné T. Classification criteria for skin sensitizing chemicals: a commentary. Contact Derm 1999; 40: 175–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, McFadden J, Evans P, Andersen KE, Jowsey I. Identification and classification of skin sensitisers: Identifying false positives and false negatives. Contact Derm 2006; 55: 268–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mowad CM. Cocamidopropyl betaine allergy. Am J Contact Derm 2001; 12: 223–224.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McFadden JP, Ross JS, White IR, Wakelin SH, Basketter DA. Patch test reactivity to amidoamine and dimethylaminopropylamine in cocamidopropylbetaine allergic patients. Contact Derm 2001; 44: 72–74.
   Google Scholar
• Moreau L, Sasseville D. Allergic contact dermatitis from cocamidopropyl betaine, cocamidoamine, 3-(dimethylamino)propylamine, and oleamidopropyl dimethylamine: Co-reactions or cross-reactions? Derm 2004; 15:164–169.
   Google Scholar
• Raz O, Slodownik D, Ingber A. Allergic contact dermatitis to cocamidopropyl betaine among Israeli patients with cosmetic allergy. Harefuah 2006; 145: 486–488.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cronin MTD, Basketter DA. Multivariate QSAR analysis of a skin sensitization database. SAR and QSAR in Env Res 1994; 2: 159–179.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fowler JF Jr, Zug KM, Taylor JS, Storrs FJ, Sherertz EA, Sasseville DA, Rietschel RL, Pratt MD, Mathias CG, Marks JG, Maibach HI, Fransway AF, Deleo VA, Belsito DV. Allergy to cocamidopropyl betaine and amidoamine in North America. Derm 2004; 5: 5–6.
   Google Scholar
• Fartasch M, Diepgen T, Kuhn M, Basketter DA. Repeated open application testing of a CAPB containing shower gel. Contact Derm 1999; 41: 30–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HERA, 2005. Human and environmental risk assessment on ingredients and household cleaning products: Cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB). http://www.heraproject.com/files/45-HH-05-Final%20CAPB-HH-Fraunhofer-2806.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Api AM, Basketter DA, Cadby PA, Cano M-F, Ellis G, Gerberick GF, Griem P, McNamee PM, Ryan CA, Safford B. Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 2007; in press.
   Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I. The local lymph node assay EC3 value: Status of validation. Contact Derm 2007; 57: 70–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar