Assessment of the skin sensitizing potential of chemicals, contained in foods and/or cosmetic ingredients, using a modified local lymph node assay with an elicitation phase (LLNA:DAE) method.

We evaluated the skin sensitizing potential of 10 natural organic chemicals, or their derivatives, which are included in foods and/or skin products, using a modified local lymph node assay (LLNA), with an elicitation phase (LLNA:DAE). The following compounds were tested: carminic acid, esculetin, 4-methyl esculetin, coumarin, quercetin, curcumin, naringenin, chlorogenic acid, isoscopoletin, and shikonin. Esculetin, 4-methyl esculetin, isoscopoletin, and shikonin yielded positive results. In particular, shikonin at a very low concentration (0.05%) induced an elicitation response. In conclusion, four of the 10 natural organic chemicals tested had a skin sensitization potential, with shikonin producing serious reaction even at a very low concentration.

Unsaturated fatty acids show clear elicitation responses in a modified local lymph node assay with an elicitation phase, and test positive in the direct peptide reactivity assay.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Test Guidelines (TG) adopted the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and guinea pig maximization test (GPMT) as stand-alone skin sensitization test methods. However, unsaturated carbon-carbon double-bond and/or lipid acids afforded false-positive results more frequently in the LLNA compared to those in the GPMT and/or in human subjects. In the current study, oleic, linoleic, linolenic, undecylenic, fumaric, maleic, and succinic acid and squalene were tested in a modified LLNA with an elicitation phase (LLNA:DAE), and in a direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) to evaluate their skin-sensitizing potential. Oleic, linoleic, linolenic, undecylenic and maleic acid were positive in the LLNA:DAE, of which three, linoleic, linolenic, and maleic acid were positive in the DPRA. Furthermore, the results of the cross-sensitizing tests using four LLNA:DAE-positive chemicals were negative, indicating a chemical-specific elicitation response. In a previous report, the estimated concentration needed to produce a stimulation index of 3 (EC3) of linolenic acid, squalene, and maleic acid in the LLNA was < 10%. Therefore, these chemicals were classified as moderate skin sensitizers in the LLNA. However, the skin-sensitizing potential of all LLNA:DAE-positive chemicals was estimated as weak. These results suggested that oleic, linoleic, linolenic, undecylenic, and maleic acid had skin-sensitizing potential, and that the LLNA overestimated the skin-sensitizing potential compared to that estimated by the LLNA:DAE.

Further development of LLNA:DAE method as stand-alone skin-sensitization testing method and applied for evaluation of relative skin-sensitizing potency between chemicals.

To date, there has been no well-established local lymph node assay (LLNA) that includes an elicitation phase. Therefore, we developed a modified local lymph node assay with an elicitation phase (LLNA:DAE) to discriminate true skin sensitizers from chemicals that gave borderline positive results and previously reported this assay. To develop the LLNA:DAE method as a useful stand-alone testing method, we investigated the complete procedure for the LLNA:DAE method using hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (HCA), isoeugenol, and 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB) as test compounds. We defined the LLNA:DAE procedure as follows: in the dose-finding test, four concentrations of chemical applied to dorsum of the right ear on days 1, 2, and 3 and dorsum of both ears on day 10. Ear thickness and skin irritation score were measured on days 1, 3, 5, 10, and 12. Local lymph nodes were excised and weighed on day 12. The test dose for the primary LLNA:DAE study was selected as the dose that gave the highest left ear lymph node weight in the dose-finding study, or the lowest dose that produced a left ear lymph node of over 4 mg. This procedure was validated using nine different chemicals. Furthermore, qualitative relationship was observed between the degree of elicitation response in the left ear lymph node and the skin sensitizing potency of 32 chemicals tested in this study and the previous study. These results indicated that LLNA:DAE method was as first LLNA method that was able to evaluate the skin sensitizing potential and potency in elicitation response.

Development of LLNA:DAE: a new local lymph node assay that includes the elicitation phase, discriminates borderline-positive chemicals, and is useful for cross-sensitization testing.

We developed a new local lymph node assay (LLNA) that includes the elicitation phase termed LLNA:DAE for discrimination of borderline-positive chemicals as classified by the LLNA modified by Daicel based on ATP content (LLNA:DA) and for cross-sensitization testing. Although the LLNA:DA method could help identify skin sensitizers, some skin irritants classified as non-sensitizers by the LLNA were classified as borderline positive. In addition, the evaluation for the cross-sensitization potential between chemicals was impossible. In the LLNA:DAE procedure, test group of mice received four applications of chemicals on the dorsum of the right ear for induction and one application on the dorsum of the left ear for elicitation. Control group of mice received one chemical application on the dorsum of the left ear. We evaluated the sensitizing potential by comparing the weights of the lymph nodes from the left ears between the two groups. The results of using the LLNA:DAE method to examine 24 chemicals, which contained borderline-positive chemicals, were consistent with those from the LLNA method, except for nickel chloride (NiCl2). Two chemical pairs, 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB) with 2,4-dinitrofluorobenzene (DNFB) and hydroquinone (HQ) with p-benzoquinone (p-BQ), showed clear cross-sensitization with each other, while another chemical pair, DNFB with hexylcinnamic aldehyde (HCA) did not. Taken together, our results suggest that the LLNA:DAE method is useful for discriminating borderline-positive chemicals and for determining chemical cross-sensitization.

A catch-up validation study of an in vitro skin irritation test method using reconstructed human epidermis LabCyte EPI-MODEL24.

Three validation studies were conducted by the Japanese Society for Alternatives to Animal Experiments in order to assess the performance of a skin irritation assay using reconstructed human epidermis (RhE) LabCyte EPI-MODEL24 (LabCyte EPI-MODEL24 SIT) developed by the Japan Tissue Engineering Co., Ltd. (J-TEC), and the results of these studies were submitted to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for the creation of a Test Guideline (TG). In the summary review report from the OECD, the peer review panel indicated the need to resolve an issue regarding the misclassification of 1-bromohexane. To this end, a rinsing operation intended to remove exposed chemicals was reviewed and the standard operating procedure (SOP) revised by J-TEC. Thereafter, in order to confirm general versatility of the revised SOP, a new validation management team was organized by the Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM) to undertake a catch-up validation study that would compare the revised assay with similar in vitro skin irritation assays, per OECD TG No. 439 (2010). The catch-up validation and supplementary studies for LabCyte EPI-MODEL24 SIT using the revised SOPs were conducted at three laboratories. These results showed that the revised SOP of LabCyte EPI-MODEL24 SIT conformed more accurately to the classifications for skin irritation under the United Nations Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (UN GHS), thereby highlighting the importance of an optimized rinsing operation for the removal of exposed chemicals in obtaining consistent results from in vitro skin irritation assays.