The local lymph node assay and the assessment of relative potency: status of validation

For the prediction of skin sensitization potential, the local lymph node assay (LLNA) is a fully validated alternative to guinea‐pig tests. More recently, information from LLNA dose–response analyses has been used to assess the relative potency of skin sensitizing chemicals. These data are then deployed for risk assessment and risk management. In this commentary, the utility and validity of these relative potency measurements are reviewed. It is concluded that the LLNA does provide a valuable assessment of relative sensitizing potency in the form of the estimated concentration of a chemical required to produce a threefold stimulation of draining lymph node cell proliferation compared with concurrent controls (EC3 value) and that all reasonable validation requirements have been addressed successfully. EC3 measurements are reproducible in both intra‐ and interlaboratory evaluations and are stable over time. It has been shown also, by several independent groups, that EC3 values correlate closely with data on relative human skin sensitization potency. Consequently, the recommendation made here is that LLNA EC3 measurements should now be regarded as a validated method for the determination of the relative potency of skin sensitizing chemicals, a conclusion that has already been reached by a number of independent expert groups.

[1]  D. Basketter,et al.  Interlaboratory Evaluation of the Local Lymph Node Assay with 25 Chemicals and Comparison with Guinea Pig Test Data , 1991 .

[2]  G Frank Gerberick,et al.  Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. , 2008, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[3]  I Kimber,et al.  Structure activity relationships in skin sensitization using the murine local lymph node assay. , 1995, Toxicology.

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

[5]  G J Carr,et al.  Validation of alternative methods for toxicity testing. , 1998, Environmental health perspectives.

[6]  J Hilton,et al.  An international evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay and comparison of modified procedures. , 1995, Toxicology.

[7]  M. Sousa,et al.  Changes in the Thymus-Dependent Areas of Lymph Nodes After Immunological Stimulation , 1966, Nature.

[8]  D. Basketter,et al.  Reproducible prediction of contact allergenic potency using the local lymph node assay , 2004, Contact dermatitis.

[9]  G. Patlewicz,et al.  Skin‐sensitization structure‐activity relationships for aldehydes , 2001, Contact dermatitis.

[10]  H. van Loveren,et al.  Ranking of allergenic potency of rubber chemicals in a modified local lymph node assay. , 2002, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[11]  G Frank Gerberick,et al.  A review of the scientific basis for uncertainty factors for use in quantitative risk assessment for the induction of allergic contact dermatitis , 2002, Contact dermatitis.

[12]  D. Roberts,et al.  The value of the local lymph node assay in quantitative structure‐activity investigations , 1992, Contact dermatitis.

[13]  I Kimber,et al.  Investigation of lymph node cell proliferation as a possible immunological correlate of contact sensitizing potential. , 1991, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[14]  S. Felter,et al.  Understanding fragrance allergy using an exposure‐based risk assessment approach , 2001, Contact dermatitis.

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

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

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

[18]  Ian Kimber,et al.  Extrapolating Local Lymph Node Assay EC3 Values To Estimate Relative Sensitizing Potency , 2007, Cutaneous and ocular toxicology.

[19]  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.

[20]  D. Basketter,et al.  The impact of vehicle on assessment of relative skin sensitization potency of 1,4-dihydroquinone in the local lymph node assay. , 1999, American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

[21]  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.

[22]  I. Kimber,et al.  Potency and risk assessment of a skin‐sensitizing disperse dye using the local lymph node assay , 2005, Contact dermatitis.

[23]  David A. Basketter,et al.  Evaluation of the skin sensitizing potency of chemicals by using the existing methods and considerations of relevance for elicitation , 2005, Contact dermatitis.

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

[25]  I Kimber,et al.  The local lymph node assay: a viable alternative to currently accepted skin sensitization tests. , 1996, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[26]  Carsten Goebel,et al.  Proposal for a risk assessment methodology for skin sensitization based on sensitization potency data. , 2003, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

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

[28]  I Kimber,et al.  The local lymph node assay: developments and applications. , 1994, Toxicology.

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

[30]  I Kimber,et al.  Skin sensitization testing in potency and risk assessment. , 2001, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[31]  I Kimber,et al.  Thresholds in contact sensitization: theoretical and practical considerations. , 1999, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[32]  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.

[33]  I Kimber,et al.  Skin sensitization risk assessment: a comparative evaluation of 3 isothiazolinone biocides , 1999, Contact dermatitis.

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

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

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

[37]  Spielmann Horst,et al.  Practical Aspects of the Validation of Toxicity Test Procedures , 1995 .

[38]  D A Basketter,et al.  Validation of skin sensitization assays. , 1995, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

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

[40]  Robert D. Combes,et al.  Practical Aspects of the Validation of Toxicity Test Procedures , 1995 .

[41]  I Kimber,et al.  Human potency predictions for aldehydes using the local lymph node assay , 2001, Contact dermatitis.

[42]  Frank Gerberick,et al.  Predictive identification of human skin sensitization thresholds , 2005, Contact dermatitis.

[43]  J. Turk,et al.  A HISTOLOGICAL AND AUTORADIOGRAPHIC STUDY OF LYMPH NODES DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONTACT SENSITIVITY IN THE GUINEA-PIG. , 1965, British journal of experimental pathology.

[44]  D. Basketter,et al.  Estimation of relative skin sensitizing potency using the local lymph node assay: a comparison of formaldehyde with glutaraldehyde. , 1998, American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

[45]  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.

[46]  D. Basketter,et al.  p‐Phenylenediamine allergy: the role of Bandrowski's base , 2006, Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

[47]  Ian Kimber,et al.  Skin sensitization potency of methyl methacrylate in the local lymph node assay: comparisons with guinea‐pig data and human experience , 2006, Contact dermatitis.