Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Can currently available non-animal methods detect pre and prohaptens relevant for skin sensitization?|
|Authors:||Patlewicz Grace; CASATI Silvia; BASKETTER David; ASTURIOL BOFILL DAVID; ROBERTS David; LEPOITTEVIN Jean Pierre; WORTH Andrew; ASCHBERGER KARIN|
|Citation:||REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY p. 1-9|
|Publisher:||ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE|
|Type:||Articles in periodicals and books|
|Abstract:||Predictive testing to characterize substances for their skin sensitization potential has historically been based on animal tests such as the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA). In recent years, regulations in the cosmetics and chemicals sectors have provided strong impetus to develop non-animal alternatives. Three test methods have undergone OECD validation: the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), the KeratinoSens ™and the human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT). Whilst these methods perform relatively well in predicting LLNA results, a concern raised is their ability to predict chemicals that need activation to be sensitizing (pre- or pro-haptens). This current study reviewed an EURL ECVAM dataset of 127 substances for which information was available in the LLNA and three non-animal test methods. Twenty eight of the sensitizers needed to be activated, with the majority being pre-haptens. These were correctly identified by 1 or more of the test methods. Six substances were categorized exclusively as pro-haptens, but were correctly identified by at least one of the cell-based assays. The analysis here showed that skin metabolism was not likely to be amajor consideration for assessing sensitization potential and that sensitizers|
|JRC Directorate:||Health, Consumers and Reference Materials|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.