João Barroso

Categorization of chemicals according to their relative human skin sensitizing potency.

Although adoption of skin sensitization in vivo assays for hazard identification is likely to be successful in the next few years, this does not replace their use in potency prediction. Notably, measurement of potency of skin sensitizers in the local lymph node assay has been important. However, this local lymph node assay potency measure has not been formally assessed against a range of substances of known human sensitizing potential, because the latter is lacking. Accordingly, criteria for human data have been established that characterize 6 categories of human sensitizing potency, with 1 the most potent and 5 the least potent; category 6 represents true nonsensitizers. The literature has been searched, and 131 chemicals assigned into these categories according to their intrinsic potency judged only by the available human information. The criteria and data set generated provide a basis for examination of the capacity of nonanimal approaches for the determination of human sensitization potency.

Use of human in vitro skin models for accurate and ethical risk assessment: metabolic considerations.

Several human skin models employing primary cells and immortalized cell lines used as monocultures or combined to produce reconstituted 3D skin constructs have been developed. Furthermore, these models have been included in European genotoxicity and sensitization/irritation assay validation projects. In order to help interpret data, Cosmetics Europe (formerly COLIPA) facilitated research projects that measured a variety of defined phase I and II enzyme activities and created a complete proteomic profile of xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes (XMEs) in native human skin and compared them with data obtained from a number of in vitro models of human skin. Here, we have summarized our findings on the current knowledge of the metabolic capacity of native human skin and in vitro models and made an overall assessment of the metabolic capacity from gene expression, proteomic expression, and substrate metabolism data. The known low expression and function of phase I enzymes in native whole skin were reflected in the in vitro models. Some XMEs in whole skin were not detected in in vitro models and vice versa, and some major hepatic XMEs such as cytochrome P450-monooxygenases were absent or measured only at very low levels in the skin. Conversely, despite varying mRNA and protein levels of phase II enzymes, functional activity of glutathione S-transferases, N-acetyltransferase 1, and UDP-glucuronosyltransferases were all readily measurable in whole skin and in vitro skin models at activity levels similar to those measured in the liver. These projects have enabled a better understanding of the contribution of XMEs to toxicity endpoints.

Two novel prediction models improve predictions of skin corrosive sub-categories by test methods of OECD Test Guideline No. 431

Alternative test methods often use prediction models (PMs) for converting endpoint measurements into predictions. Two PMs are used for the skin corrosion tests (SCTs) of the OECD Test Guideline No. 431 (TG 431). One is specific to EpiSkin™ test method, whereas EpiDerm™, SkinEthic™ RHE and epiCS® share a common PM. These methods are based on reconstructed human epidermis models wherein cell viability values are measured. Their PMs allow translating those values into sub-categories of corrosive chemicals, Category 1A (Cat1A) and a combination of Categories 1B/1C (Cat1BC), and identifying non-corrosive (NC) chemicals. EpiSkin™s PM already results in sufficiently accurate predictions. The common PM of the three others accurately identifies all corrosive chemicals but, for sub-categorization, an important fraction of Cat1BC chemicals (40-50%) is over-predicted as Cat1A. This paper presents a post-hoc analysis of validation data on a set of n=80 chemicals. It investigates: why this common PM causes these over-predictions and how two novel PMs that we developed (PMvar1 and PMvar2) improve the predictive capacity of these methods. PMvar1 is based on a two-step approach; PMvar2 is based on a single composite indicator of cell viability. Both showed a greater capacity to predict Cat1BC, while Cat1A correct predictions remaining at least at the same level of EpiSkin™. We suggest revising TG 431, to include the novel PMs in view of improving the predictive capacity of its SCTs.

Regulatory assessment of in vitro skin corrosion and irritation data within the European framework: Workshop recommendations

Validated in vitro methods for skin corrosion and irritation were adopted by the OECD and by the European Union during the last decade. In the EU, Switzerland and countries adopting the EU legislation, these assays may allow the full replacement of animal testing for identifying and classifying compounds as skin corrosives, skin irritants, and non irritants. In order to develop harmonised recommendations on the use of in vitro data for regulatory assessment purposes within the European framework, a workshop was organized by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health together with ECVAM and the BfR. It comprised stakeholders from various European countries involved in the process from in vitro testing to the regulatory assessment of in vitro data. Discussions addressed the following questions: (1) the information requirements considered useful for regulatory assessment; (2) the applicability of in vitro skin corrosion data to assign the corrosive subcategories as implemented by the EU Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation; (3) the applicability of testing strategies for determining skin corrosion and irritation hazards; and (4) the applicability of the adopted in vitro assays to test mixtures, preparations and dilutions. Overall, a number of agreements and recommendations were achieved in order to clarify and facilitate the assessment and use of in vitro data from regulatory accepted methods, and ultimately help regulators and scientists facing with the new in vitro approaches to evaluate skin irritation and corrosion hazards and risks without animal data.

Analysis of the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) variability for assessing the prediction of skin sensitisation potential and potency of chemicals with non-animal approaches.

The knowledge of the biological mechanisms leading to the induction of skin sensitisation has favoured in recent years the development of alternative non-animal methods. During the formal validation process, results from the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) are generally used as reference data to assess the predictive capacity of the non-animal tests. This study reports an analysis of the variability of the LLNA for a set of chemicals for which multiple studies are available and considers three hazard classification schemes: POS/NEG, GHS/CLP and ECETOC. As the type of vehicle used in a LLNA study is known to influence to some extent the results, two analyses were performed: considering the solvent used to test the chemicals and without considering the solvent. The results show that the number of discordant classifications increases when a chemical is tested in more than one solvent. Moreover, it can be concluded that study results leading to classification in the strongest classes (1A and EXT) seem to be more reliable than those in the weakest classes. This study highlights the importance of considering the variability of the reference data when evaluating non-animal tests.

Use of HPLC/UPLC-spectrophotometry for detection of formazan in in vitro Reconstructed human Tissue (RhT)-based test methods employing the MTT-reduction assay to expand their applicability to strongly coloured test chemicals

A number of in vitro test methods using Reconstructed human Tissues (RhT) are regulatory accepted for evaluation of skin corrosion/irritation. In such methods, test chemical corrosion/irritation potential is determined by measuring tissue viability using the photometric MTT-reduction assay. A known limitation of this assay is possible interference of strongly coloured test chemicals with measurement of formazan by absorbance (OD). To address this, Cosmetics Europe evaluated use of HPLC/UPLC-spectrophotometry as an alternative formazan measurement system. Using the approach recommended by the FDA guidance for validation of bio-analytical methods, three independent laboratories established and qualified their HPLC/UPLC-spectrophotometry systems to reproducibly measure formazan from tissue extracts. Up to 26 chemicals were then tested in RhT test systems for eye/skin irritation and skin corrosion. Results support that: (1) HPLC/UPLC-spectrophotometry formazan measurement is highly reproducible; (2) formazan measurement by HPLC/UPLC-spectrophotometry and OD gave almost identical tissue viabilities for test chemicals not exhibiting colour interference nor direct MTT reduction; (3) independent of the test system used, HPLC/UPLC-spectrophotometry can measure formazan for strongly coloured test chemicals when this is not possible by absorbance only. It is therefore recommended that HPLC/UPLC-spectrophotometry to measure formazan be included in the procedures of in vitro RhT-based test methods, irrespective of the test system used and the toxicity endpoint evaluated to extend the applicability of these test methods to strongly coloured chemicals.

Standardisation of defined approaches for skin sensitisation testing to support regulatory use and international adoption: position of the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods

Skin sensitisation is the regulatory endpoint that has been at the centre of concerted efforts to replace animal testing in recent years, as demonstrated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) adoption of five non-animal methods addressing mechanisms under the first three key events of the skin sensitisation adverse outcome pathway. Nevertheless, the currently adopted methods, when used in isolation, are not sufficient to fulfil regulatory requirements on the skin sensitisation potential and potency of chemicals comparable to that provided by the regulatory animal tests. For this reason, a number of defined approaches integrating data from these methods with other relevant information have been proposed and documented by the OECD. With the aim to further enhance regulatory consideration and adoption of defined approaches, the European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal testing in collaboration with the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods hosted, on 4–5 October 2016, a workshop on the international regulatory applicability and acceptance of alternative non-animal approaches, i.e., defined approaches, to skin sensitisation assessment of chemicals used in a variety of sectors. The workshop convened representatives from more than 20 regulatory authorities from the European Union, United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Brazil and China. There was a general consensus among the workshop participants that to maximise global regulatory acceptance of data generated with defined approaches, international harmonisation and standardisation are needed. Potential assessment criteria were defined for a systematic evaluation of existing defined approaches that would facilitate their translation into international standards, e.g., into a performance-based Test Guideline. Informed by the discussions at the workshop, the ICATM members propose practical ways to further promote the regulatory use and facilitate adoption of defined approaches for skin sensitisation assessments.

International regulatory requirements for skin sensitization testing

Skin sensitization test data are required or considered by chemical regulation authorities around the world. These data are used to develop product hazard labeling for the protection of consumers or workers and to assess risks from exposure to skin-sensitizing chemicals. To identify opportunities for regulatory uses of non-animal replacements for skin sensitization tests, the needs and uses for skin sensitization test data must first be clarified. Thus, we reviewed skin sensitization testing requirements for seven countries or regions that are represented in the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM). We noted the type of skin sensitization data required for each chemical sector and whether these data were used in a hazard classification, potency classification, or risk assessment context; the preferred tests; and whether alternative non-animal tests were acceptable. An understanding of national and regional regulatory requirements for skin sensitization testing will inform the development of ICATMs international strategy for the acceptance and implementation of non-animal alternatives to assess the health hazards and risks associated with potential skin sensitizers.

International Harmonization and Cooperation in the Validation of Alternative Methods

The development and validation of scientific alternatives to animal testing is important not only from an ethical perspective (implementation of 3Rs), but also to improve safety assessment decision making with the use of mechanistic information of higher relevance to humans. To be effective in these efforts, it is however imperative that validation centres, industry, regulatory bodies, academia and other interested parties ensure a strong international cooperation, cross-sector collaboration and intense communication in the design, execution, and peer review of validation studies. Such an approach is critical to achieve harmonized and more transparent approaches to method validation, peer-review and recommendation, which will ultimately expedite the international acceptance of valid alternative methods or strategies by regulatory authorities and their implementation and use by stakeholders. It also allows achieving greater efficiency and effectiveness by avoiding duplication of effort and leveraging limited resources. In view of achieving these goals, the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM) was established in 2009 by validation centres from Europe, USA, Canada and Japan. ICATM was later joined by Korea in 2011 and currently also counts with Brazil and China as observers. This chapter describes the existing differences across world regions and major efforts carried out for achieving consistent international cooperation and harmonization in the validation and adoption of alternative approaches to animal testing.