Reproducible prediction of contact allergenic potency using the local lymph node assay

A considerable body of data has been accumulated which demonstrates that the local lymph node assay (LLNA) can provide a valuable estimation of the contact allergenic potency of a substance. This estimate is obtained via interpolation of the LLNA dose–response curve and is expressed as the concentration of the chemical required to evince a 3‐fold stimulation of proliferation in lymph nodes draining the site of application compared to the vehicle‐treated controls (EC3). It has also been shown that the EC3 estimates are reproducible and are stable over time. In the present work, we have extended this information by a demonstration of the inherent biological variability surrounding EC3 estimation, using data derived (from a single laboratory) from the testing of isoeugenol as a positive control. Isoeugenol gave EC3 values ranging from 0.5 to 2.6% (n = 29), with a mean and standard deviation of 1.2 ± 0.6%. Given that EC3 values for a variety of contact allergens range over several orders of magnitude, these results further endorse the utility of EC3 values as a reliable indicator of human contact allergenic potency.

[1]  I Kimber,et al.  The murine local lymph node assay: a commentary on collaborative studies and new directions. , 1992, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[2]  J Hilton,et al.  Further evaluation of the local lymph node assay in the final phase of an international collaborative trial. , 1996, Toxicology.

[3]  I. Kimber,et al.  Use of the local lymph node assay for the estimation of relative contact allergenic potency , 2000, Contact dermatitis.

[4]  J Hilton,et al.  The murine local lymph node assay. , 1995, Methods in molecular biology.

[5]  I Kimber,et al.  Local lymph node assay: validation assessment for regulatory purposes. , 2000, American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

[6]  I Kimber,et al.  Measurement of allergenic potency using the local lymph node assay. , 2001, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[7]  I Kimber,et al.  Contact allergenic potency: correlation of human and local lymph node assay data. , 2001, American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

[8]  G Frank Gerberick,et al.  Application of the risk assessment paradigm to the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. , 2003, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[9]  K Schneider,et al.  Quantitative relationship between the local lymph node assay and human skin sensitization assays. , 2004, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[10]  I Kimber,et al.  Activity of human contact allergens in the murine local lymph node assay , 2000, Contact dermatitis.

[11]  C. Zachariae,et al.  Methyldibromo glutaronitrile: clinical experience and exposure‐based risk assessment , 2003, Contact dermatitis.

[12]  I. Kimber,et al.  Local lymph node assay responses to paraphenylenediamine: intra‐ and inter‐laboratory evaluations , 1999, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[13]  Ian Kimber,et al.  The suitability of hexyl cinnamic aldehyde as a calibrant for the murine local lymph node assay , 2001, Contact dermatitis.

[14]  I Kimber,et al.  A comparison of statistical approaches to the derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses , 1999, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[15]  I Kimber,et al.  Threshold for classification as a skin sensitizer in the local lymph node assay: a statistical evaluation. , 1999, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[16]  I Kimber,et al.  Skin sensitisation, vehicle effects and the local lymph node assay. , 2001, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[17]  T. Menné,et al.  Risk assessment failures of chemicals commonly used in consumer products , 2002, Contact dermatitis.

[18]  Ian Kimber,et al.  Contact sensitization: A new approach to risk assessment , 1997 .