Prediction of skin sensitization potency sub-categories using peptide reactivity data.

While the skin sensitization hazard of substances can already be identified using non-animal methods, the classification of potency sub-categories GHS-1A and 1B is still challenging. Potency can be measured by the dose at which an effect is observed; since the protein-adduct formation is determining the dose of the allergen in the skin, peptide reactivity was used to assess the potency. The Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA; one concentration and reaction-time) did not sufficiently discriminate between sub-categories 1A and 1B (56% accuracy compared to LLNA data, n=124). An extended protocol termed 'quantitative DPRA' (three concentrations and one reaction-time), discriminated sub-categories GHS 1A and 1B with an accuracy of 81% or 57% compared to LLNA (n=36) or human (n=14) data, respectively. The analysis of the Cys-adducts was already sufficient; additional analysis of Lys-adducts did not improve the predictivity. An additional modification, the 'kinetic DPRA' (several concentrations and reaction-times) was used to approximate the rate constant of Cys-peptide-adduct formation. 35 of 38 substances were correctly assigned to the potency sub-categories (LLNA data), and the predictivity for 14 human data was equally high. These results warrant the kinetic DPRA for further validation in order to fully replace in vivo testing for assessing skin sensitization including potency sub-classification.

Assessment of skin sensitization under REACH: A case report on vehicle choice in the LLNA and its crucial role preventing false positive results.

In the EU, chemicals with a production or import volume in quantities of one metric ton per year or more have to be tested for skin sensitizing properties under the REACH regulation. The murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) and its modifications are widely used to fulfil the data requirement, as it is currently considered the first-choice method for in vivo testing to cover this endpoint. This manuscript describes a case study highlighting the importance of understanding the chemistry of the test material during testing for 'skin sensitization' of MCDA (mixture of 2,4- and 2,6-diamino-methylcyclohexane) with particular focus on the vehicle used. While the BrdU-ELISA modification of the LLNA using acetone/olive oil (AOO) as vehicle revealed expectable positive results. However, the concentration control analysis unexpectedly revealed an instability of MCDA in the vehicle AOO. Further studies on the reactivity showed MCDA to rapidly react with AOO under formation of various imine structures, which might have caused the positive LLNA result. The repetition of the LLNA using propylene glycol (PG) as vehicle did not confirm the positive results of the LLNA using AOO. Finally, a classification of MCDA as skin sensitizer according to the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) was not justified.

Assessment of Pre- and Pro-haptens Using Nonanimal Test Methods for Skin Sensitization.

Because of ethical and regulatory reasons, several nonanimal test methods to assess the skin sensitization potential of chemicals have been developed and validated. In contrast to in vivo methods, they lack or provide limited metabolic capacity. For this reason, identification of pro-haptens but also pre-haptens, which require molecular transformations to gain peptide reactivity, is a challenge for these methods. In this study, 27 pre- and pro-haptens were tested using nonanimal test methods. Of these, 18 provided true positive results in the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA; sensitivity of 67%), although lacking structural alerts for direct peptide reactivity. The reaction mechanisms leading to peptide depletion in the DPRA were therefore elucidated using mass spectrometry. Hapten-peptide adducts were identified for 13 of the 18 chemicals indicating that these pre-haptens were activated and that peptide binding occurred. Positive results for five of the 18 chemicals can be explained by dipeptide formations or the oxidation of the sulfhydryl group of the peptide. Nine of the 27 chemicals were tested negative in the DPRA. Of these, four yielded true positive results in the keratinocyte and dendritic cell based assays. Likewise, 16 of the 18 chemicals tested positive in the DPRA were also positive in either one or both of the cell-based assays. A combination of DPRA, KeratinoSens, and h-CLAT used in a 2 out of 3 weight of evidence (WoE) approach identified 22 of the 27 pre- and pro-haptens correctly (sensitivity of 81%), exhibiting a similar sensitivity as for directly acting haptens. This analysis shows that the combination of in chemico and in vitro test methods is suitable to identify pre-haptens and the majority of pro-haptens.