The impact of vehicle on the relative potency of skin-sensitizing chemicals in the local lymph node assay

References

• 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. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2007, , in press.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felter SP, Robinson MK, Basketter DA, Gerberick GF. A review of the scientific basis for uncertainty factors for use in quantitative risk assessment for the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 47: 257–266
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felter SP, Ryan CA, Basketter DA, Gilmour NJ, Gerberick GF. Application of the risk assessment paradigm to the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2003; 37: 1–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerberick GF, Robinson MK, Felter SP, White IR, Basketter DA. Understanding fragrance allergy using an exposure-based risk assessment approach. Contact Dermatitis 2001; 45: 333–340
   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
• Magnusson, B, Kligman, AM. Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Guinea Pig. Identification of Contact Allergens. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, IL 1970
   Google Scholar
• Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. Effects of vehicles and elicitation concentration in contact dermatitis testing. I. Experimental contact sensitization in humans. Contact Dermatitis 1976; 2: 325–329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson JC, Rodi SB. Effect of vehicles and elicitation concentration in contact dermatitis testing. II. Statistical analysis of data. Contact Dermatitis 1976; 2: 330–334
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Basketter DA, Ryan CA, Gerberick GF. The local lymph node assay: past, present and future. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 47: 315–328
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Clapp C, Jefferies D, Safford B, Ryan CA, Gerberick F, Dearman RJ, Kimber I. Predictive identification of human skin sensitization thresholds. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 53: 260–267
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Gerberick F, Kimber I. The local lymph node assay and the assessment of relative potency: status of validation. Contact Dermatitis 2007; 57: 70–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lea LJ, Warbrick V, Dearman RJ, Harvey P, Kimber I, Basketter DA. The impact of vehicle on assessment of relative skin sensitisation potency of 1,4-dihydroquinone in the local lymph node assay. Am J Contact Dermatitis 1999; 10: 213–218
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Warbrick EV, Dearman RJ, Basketter DA, Kimber I. Influence of application vehicle on skin sensitization to the isothiazolinone CMIT: an analysis using the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 41: 325–329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warbrick EV, Dearman RJ, Basketter DA, Kimber I. Failure of vehicle matrix to influence local lymph node assay responses to benzocaine. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 42: 164–165
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright Z, Basketter DA, Blaikie L, Cooper KJ, Warbrick EV, Dearman RJ, Kimber I. Vehicle effects on skin sensitizing potency of four chemicals: assessment using the local lymph node assay. Int J Cos Sci 2001; 23: 75–83
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I. Skin sensitisation, vehicle effects and the local lymph node assay. Food Chem Toxicol 2001; 39: 621–627
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Lalko J, Isola D, Api AM. Ethanol and diethyl phthalate: vehicle effects in the local lymph node assay. Int J Toxicol 2004; 23: 171–177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Lea L, Cooper K, Dickens A, Briggs D, Pate I, Dearman RJ, Kimber I. A comparison of statistical approaches to derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses. J Appl Toxicol 1999; 19: 261–266
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Test Guideline 429: The Local Lymph Node Assay. OECD, Paris, France 2002
   Google Scholar
• Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kern PS, Dearman RJ, Kimber I, Patlewicz GY, Basketter DA. A chemical dataset for evaluation of alternative approaches to skin-sensitization testing. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50: 274–288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loveless SE, Ladics GS, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Basketter DA, Scholes EW, House RV, Hilton J, Dearman RJ, Kimber I. Further evaluation of the local lymph node assay in the final phase of an international collaborative trial. Toxicology 1996; 108: 141–152
   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 with glutaraldehyde. Am J Contact Dermatitis 1998; 9: 29–33
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Basketter DA, Cadby P. Reproducible prediction of contact allergenic potency using the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50: 15–17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimber I, Hilton J, Dearman RJ, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Basketter DA, Scholes EW, Ladics GS, Loveless SE, House RV, Guy A. An international evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay and comparison of modified procedures. Toxicology 1995; 103: 63–73
   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