Computer models versus reality: how well do in silico models currently predict the sensitization potential of a substance.

National legislations for the assessment of the skin sensitization potential of chemicals are increasingly based on the globally harmonized system (GHS). In this study, experimental data on 55 non-sensitizing and 45 sensitizing chemicals were evaluated according to GHS criteria and used to test the performance of computer (in silico) models for the prediction of skin sensitization. Statistic models (Vega, Case Ultra, TOPKAT), mechanistic models (Toxtree, OECD (Q)SAR toolbox, DEREK) or a hybrid model (TIMES-SS) were evaluated. Between three and nine of the substances evaluated were found in the individual training sets of various models. Mechanism based models performed better than statistical models and gave better predictivities depending on the stringency of the domain definition. Best performance was achieved by TIMES-SS, with a perfect prediction, whereby only 16% of the substances were within its reliability domain. Some models offer modules for potency; however predictions did not correlate well with the GHS sensitization subcategory derived from the experimental data. In conclusion, although mechanistic models can be used to a certain degree under well-defined conditions, at the present, the in silico models are not sufficiently accurate for broad application to predict skin sensitization potentials.

[1]  E. Fabian,et al.  Relevance of xenobiotic enzymes in human skin in vitro models to activate pro-sensitizers , 2012, Journal of immunotoxicology.

[2]  Robert Landsiedel,et al.  Experience with local lymph node assay performance standards using standard radioactivity and nonradioactive cell count measurements , 2012, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[3]  D A Basketter,et al.  An expert system rulebase for identifying contact allergens. , 1994, Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA.

[4]  K. Andersen,et al.  Predictive testing in contact dermatitis. Allergic contact dermatitis. , 1997, Clinics in dermatology.

[5]  Aynur Aptula,et al.  Local Lymph Node Data for the Evaluation of Skin Sensitization Alternatives: A Second Compilation , 2010, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[6]  Robert Landsiedel,et al.  Non-animal test methods for predicting skin sensitization potentials , 2012, Archives of Toxicology.

[7]  K. Landsteiner,et al.  STUDIES ON THE SENSITIZATION OF ANIMALS WITH SIMPLE CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS , 1935, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[8]  Eberhard Nies,et al.  Local lymph node assay (LLNA): comparison of different protocols by testing skin-sensitizing epoxy resin system components. , 2008, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[9]  Philip Judson,et al.  Definition of the Applicability Domains of Knowledge-based Predictive Toxicology Expert Systems by Using a Structural Fragment-based Approach , 2009, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[10]  S Dimitrov,et al.  Simulation of chemical metabolism for fate and hazard assessment. V. Mammalian hazard assessment , 2012, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[11]  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.

[12]  Valérie Zuang,et al.  Report of the EPAA–ECVAM Workshop on the Validation of Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS) , 2012, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[13]  Orest T. Macina,et al.  QSAR FOR ALLERGIC CONTACT DERMATITIS , 1996 .

[14]  A. Goossens,et al.  Clinical and experimental studies of octocrylene's allergenic potency , 2011, Contact dermatitis.

[15]  Robert Landsiedel,et al.  Drug-Metabolizing Enzymes in the Skin of Man, Rat, and Pig , 2007, Drug metabolism reviews.

[16]  D. Roberts,et al.  Haptens, prohaptens and prehaptens, or electrophiles and proelectrophiles , 2007, Contact dermatitis.

[17]  K. Landsteiner,et al.  STUDIES ON THE SENSITIZATION OF ANIMALS WITH SIMPLE CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS. II , 1936, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[18]  Petra S Kern,et al.  TIMES-SS--a mechanistic evaluation of an external validation study using reaction chemistry principles. , 2007, Chemical research in toxicology.

[19]  J. Lepoittevin.  Metabolism versus chemical transformation or pro‐ versus prehaptens? , 2006, Contact dermatitis.

[20]  Andrew P. Worth,et al.  Review of Data Sources, QSARs and Integrated Testing Strategies for Skin Sensitisation , 2008 .

[21]  Gilles Klopman,et al.  Optimizing Predictive Performance of CASE Ultra Expert System Models Using the Applicability Domains of Individual Toxicity Alerts , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[22]  J. Hettick,et al.  Haptenation: Chemical Reactivity and Protein Binding , 2011, Journal of allergy.

[23]  E. Warshaw,et al.  Positive Patch‐Test Reactions to Propylene Glycol: A Retrospective Cross‐Sectional Analysis from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 1996 to 2006 , 2009, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[24]  Marco Pintore,et al.  Global QSAR models of skin sensitisers for regulatory purposes , 2010, Chemistry Central journal.

[25]  M. Robinson.  Optimization of an in vitro lymphocyte blastogenesis assay for predictive assessment of immunologic responsiveness to contact sensitizers. , 1989, The Journal of investigative dermatology.

[26]  Robert Landsiedel,et al.  Putting the parts together: combining in vitro methods to test for skin sensitizing potentials. , 2012, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[27]  I Kimber,et al.  Strategies for identifying false positive responses in predictive skin sensitization tests. , 1998, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[28]  Ian Kimber,et al.  Compilation of Historical Local Lymph Node Data for Evaluation of Skin Sensitization Alternative Methods , 2005, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[29]  David W Roberts,et al.  Mechanistic applicability domains for nonanimal-based prediction of toxicological end points: general principles and application to reactive toxicity. , 2006, Chemical research in toxicology.

[30]  S. Enoch,et al.  Identification of mechanisms of toxic action for skin sensitisation using a SMARTS pattern based approach , 2008, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[31]  Reinhard Kreiling,et al.  Evaluating the sensitization potential of surfactants: integrating data from the local lymph node assay, guinea pig maximization test, and in vitro methods in a weight-of-evidence approach. , 2011, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[32]  G. Dupuis,et al.  Allergic contact dermatitis to simple chemicals : a molecular approach , 1982 .

[33]  A. Kligman,et al.  The Identification of Contact Allergens by Animal Assay. the Guinea Pig Maximization Test , 1969 .

[34]  M. S. Lee,et al.  Comparison of the skin sensitizing potential of unsaturated compounds as assessed by the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and the guinea pig maximization test (GPMT). , 2008, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.