Joanna Matheson

Skin sensitization in chemical risk assessment: Report of a WHO/IPCS international workshop focusing on dose–response assessment

An international workshop was held in 2006 to evaluate experimental techniques for hazard identification and hazard characterization of sensitizing agents in terms of their ability to produce data, including dose-response information, to inform risk assessment. Human testing to identify skin sensitizers is discouraged for ethical reasons. Animal-free alternatives, such as quantitative structure-activity relationships and in vitro testing approaches, have not been sufficiently developed for such application. Guinea pig tests do not generally include dose-response assessment and are therefore not designed for the assessment of potency, defined as the relative ability of a chemical to induce sensitization in a previously naive individual. In contrast, the mouse local lymph node assay does include dose-response assessment and is appropriate for this purpose. Epidemiological evidence can be used only under certain circumstances for the evaluation of the sensitizing potency of chemicals, as it reflects degree of exposure as well as intrinsic potency. Nevertheless, human diagnostic patch test data and quantitative elicitation data have provided very important information in reducing allergic contact dermatitis risk and sensitization in the general population. It is therefore recommended that clinical data, particularly dose-response data derived from sensitized patients, be included in risk assessment.

Integrated decision strategies for skin sensitization hazard

One of the top priorities of the Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) is the identification and evaluation of non‐animal alternatives for skin sensitization testing. Although skin sensitization is a complex process, the key biological events of the process have been well characterized in an adverse outcome pathway (AOP) proposed by the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD). Accordingly, ICCVAM is working to develop integrated decision strategies based on the AOP using in vitro, in chemico and in silico information. Data were compiled for 120 substances tested in the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA), direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), human cell line activation test (h‐CLAT) and KeratinoSens assay. Data for six physicochemical properties, which may affect skin penetration, were also collected, and skin sensitization read‐across predictions were performed using OECD QSAR Toolbox. All data were combined into a variety of potential integrated decision strategies to predict LLNA outcomes using a training set of 94 substances and an external test set of 26 substances. Fifty‐four models were built using multiple combinations of machine learning approaches and predictor variables. The seven models with the highest accuracy (89–96% for the test set and 96–99% for the training set) for predicting LLNA outcomes used a support vector machine (SVM) approach with different combinations of predictor variables. The performance statistics of the SVM models were higher than any of the non‐animal tests alone and higher than simple test battery approaches using these methods. These data suggest that computational approaches are promising tools to effectively integrate data sources to identify potential skin sensitizers without animal testing. Published 2016. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Adverse outcome pathways: From research to regulation scientific workshop report.

An adverse outcome pathway (AOP) helps to organize existing knowledge on chemical mode of action, starting with a molecular initiating event such as receptor binding, continuing through key events, and ending with an adverse outcome such as reproductive impairment. AOPs can help identify knowledge gaps where more research is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms, aid in chemical hazard characterization, and guide the development of new testing approaches that use fewer or no animals. A September 2014 workshop in Bethesda, Maryland considered how the AOP concept could improve regulatory assessments of chemical toxicity. Scientists from 21 countries, representing industry, academia, regulatory agencies, and special interest groups, attended the workshop, titled Adverse Outcome Pathways: From Research to Regulation. Workshop plenary presentations were followed by breakout sessions that considered regulatory acceptance of AOPs and AOP-based tools, criteria for building confidence in an AOP for regulatory use, and requirements to build quantitative AOPs and AOP networks. Discussions during the closing session emphasized a need to increase transparent and inclusive collaboration, especially with disciplines outside of toxicology. Additionally, to increase impact, working groups should be established to systematically prioritize and develop AOPs. Multiple collaborative projects and follow-up activities resulted from the workshop.

Multivariate models for prediction of human skin sensitization hazard.

One of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) top priorities is the development and evaluation of non‐animal approaches to identify potential skin sensitizers. The complexity of biological events necessary to produce skin sensitization suggests that no single alternative method will replace the currently accepted animal tests. ICCVAM is evaluating an integrated approach to testing and assessment based on the adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization that uses machine learning approaches to predict human skin sensitization hazard. We combined data from three in chemico or in vitro assays – the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), human cell line activation test (h‐CLAT) and KeratinoSens™ assay – six physicochemical properties and an in silico read‐across prediction of skin sensitization hazard into 12 variable groups. The variable groups were evaluated using two machine learning approaches, logistic regression and support vector machine, to predict human skin sensitization hazard. Models were trained on 72 substances and tested on an external set of 24 substances. The six models (three logistic regression and three support vector machine) with the highest accuracy (92%) used: (1) DPRA, h‐CLAT and read‐across; (2) DPRA, h‐CLAT, read‐across and KeratinoSens; or (3) DPRA, h‐CLAT, read‐across, KeratinoSens and log P. The models performed better at predicting human skin sensitization hazard than the murine local lymph node assay (accuracy 88%), any of the alternative methods alone (accuracy 63–79%) or test batteries combining data from the individual methods (accuracy 75%). These results suggest that computational methods are promising tools to identify effectively the potential human skin sensitizers without animal testing. Published 2016. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Alternative approaches for identifying acute systemic toxicity: Moving from research to regulatory testing

Acute systemic toxicity testing provides the basis for hazard labeling and risk management of chemicals. A number of international efforts have been directed at identifying non-animal alternatives for in vivo acute systemic toxicity tests. A September 2015 workshop, Alternative Approaches for Identifying Acute Systemic Toxicity: Moving from Research to Regulatory Testing, reviewed the state-of-the-science of non-animal alternatives for this testing and explored ways to facilitate implementation of alternatives. Workshop attendees included representatives from international regulatory agencies, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and industry. Resources identified as necessary for meaningful progress in implementing alternatives included compiling and making available high-quality reference data, training on use and interpretation of in vitro and in silico approaches, and global harmonization of testing requirements. Attendees particularly noted the need to characterize variability in reference data to evaluate new approaches. They also noted the importance of understanding the mechanisms of acute toxicity, which could be facilitated by the development of adverse outcome pathways. Workshop breakout groups explored different approaches to reducing or replacing animal use for acute toxicity testing, with each group crafting a roadmap and strategy to accomplish near-term progress. The workshop steering committee has organized efforts to implement the recommendations of the workshop participants.

Prediction of skin sensitization potency using machine learning approaches

The replacement of animal use in testing for regulatory classification of skin sensitizers is a priority for US federal agencies that use data from such testing. Machine learning models that classify substances as sensitizers or non‐sensitizers without using animal data have been developed and evaluated. Because some regulatory agencies require that sensitizers be further classified into potency categories, we developed statistical models to predict skin sensitization potency for murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and human outcomes. Input variables for our models included six physicochemical properties and data from three non‐animal test methods: direct peptide reactivity assay; human cell line activation test; and KeratinoSens™ assay. Models were built to predict three potency categories using four machine learning approaches and were validated using external test sets and leave‐one‐out cross‐validation. A one‐tiered strategy modeled all three categories of response together while a two‐tiered strategy modeled sensitizer/non‐sensitizer responses and then classified the sensitizers as strong or weak sensitizers. The two‐tiered model using the support vector machine with all assay and physicochemical data inputs provided the best performance, yielding accuracy of 88% for prediction of LLNA outcomes (120 substances) and 81% for prediction of human test outcomes (87 substances). The best one‐tiered model predicted LLNA outcomes with 78% accuracy and human outcomes with 75% accuracy. By comparison, the LLNA predicts human potency categories with 69% accuracy (60 of 87 substances correctly categorized). These results suggest that computational models using non‐animal methods may provide valuable information for assessing skin sensitization potency. Copyright

Status of acute systemic toxicity testing requirements and data uses by U.S. regulatory agencies

Acute systemic toxicity data are used by a number of U.S. federal agencies, most commonly for hazard classification and labeling and/or risk assessment for acute chemical exposures. To identify opportunities for the implementation of non-animal approaches to produce these data, the regulatory needs and uses for acute systemic toxicity information must first be clarified. Thus, we reviewed acute systemic toxicity testing requirements for six U.S. agencies (Consumer Product Safety Commission, Department of Defense, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and noted whether there is flexibility in satisfying data needs with methods that replace or reduce animal use. Understanding the current regulatory use and acceptance of non-animal data is a necessary starting point for future method development, optimization, and validation efforts. The current review will inform the development of a national strategy and roadmap for implementing non-animal approaches to assess potential hazards associated with acute exposures to industrial chemicals and medical products. The Acute Toxicity Workgroup of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), U.S. agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders will work to execute this strategy.