Determining epidermal disposition kinetics for use in an integrated nonanimal approach to skin sensitization risk assessment.

Development of risk assessment methods for skin sensitization in the absence of toxicological data generated in animals represents a major scientific and technical challenge. The first step in human skin sensitization induction is the transport of sensitizer from the applied dose on the skin surface to the epidermis, where innate immune activation occurs. Building on the previous development of a time course in vitro human skin permeation assay, new kinetic data for 10 sensitizers and 2 nonsensitizers are reported. Multicompartmental modeling has been applied to analyze the data and determine candidate dose parameters for use in integrated risk assessment methods: the area under the curve (AUC) and maximum concentration (C(max)) in the epidermis. A model with two skin compartments, representing the stratum corneum and viable skin (epidermis and dermis), was chosen following a formal model selection process. Estimates of the uncertainty, as well as average values of the epidermal disposition kinetics parameters, were made by fitting to the time course skin permeation data from individual skin donors. A potential reduced time course method is proposed based on two time points at 4 and 24 h, which gives results close to those from the full time course for the current data sets. The time course data presented in this work have been provided as a resource for development of predictive in silico skin permeation models.

[1]  Gerald B. Kasting,et al.  A Spreadsheet-Based Method for Estimating the Skin Disposition of Volatile Compounds: Application to N,N-Diethyl-m-Toluamide (DEET) , 2008, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[2]  Julia Fentem,et al.  The Feasibility of Replacing Animal Testing for Assessing Consumer Safety: A Suggested Future Direction , 2004, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[3]  J Hadgraft,et al.  Inter- and intralaboratory variation of in vitro diffusion cell measurements: an international multicenter study using quasi-standardized methods and materials. , 2005, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[4]  C. Griffiths,et al.  Cytokines and Langerhans cell mobilisation in mouse and man. , 2005, Cytokine.

[5]  I. Kimber,et al.  Langerhans cell migration: not necessarily always at the center of the skin sensitization universe. , 2009, The Journal of investigative dermatology.

[6]  Petra S Kern,et al.  Mechanistic applicability domain classification of a local lymph node assay dataset for skin sensitization. , 2007, Chemical research in toxicology.

[7]  Carl Westmoreland,et al.  A future approach to measuring relative skin sensitising potency: a proposal , 2006, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[8]  Maja Aleksic,et al.  Reactivity profiling: covalent modification of single nucleophile peptides for skin sensitization risk assessment. , 2009, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[9]  B. Turner European Union (EU) , 1999 .

[10]  Casati Silvia,et al.  Skin Sensitisation and Epidermal Disposition: The Relevance of Epidermal Disposition for Sensitisation Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment , 2007 .

[11]  T. Schultz,et al.  Read‐across to rank skin sensitization potential: subcategories for the Michael acceptor domain , 2009, Contact dermatitis.

[12]  Michael S. Roberts,et al.  Dermal Absorption and Toxicity Assessment , 2007 .

[13]  G Frank Gerberick,et al.  Quantification of chemical peptide reactivity for screening contact allergens: a classification tree model approach. , 2007, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[14]  N. Bhatia Dermal Dendritic Cells, and Not Langerhans Cells, Play an Essential Role in Inducing an Immune Response , 2010 .

[15]  Russell O. Potts,et al.  Predicting Skin Permeability , 1992, Pharmaceutical Research.

[16]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[17]  Cameron Mackay,et al.  Assuring Consumer Safety without Animal Testing: A Feasibility Case Study for Skin Sensitisation , 2008, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[18]  A. Bunge,et al.  Pharmacokinetic models of dermal absorption. , 2001, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[19]  Givaudan Suisse,et al.  Filling the concept with data: integrating data from different in vitro and in silico assays on skin sensitizers to explore the battery approach for animal-free skin sensitization testing , 2008 .

[20]  Lujia Han,et al.  Use of “Bricks and Mortar” Model To Predict Transdermal Permeation: Model Development and Initial Validation , 2008 .

[21]  Grace Patlewicz,et al.  Chemical reactivity indices and mechanism‐based read‐across for non‐animal based assessment of skin sensitisation potential , 2008, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[22]  Silvia Casati,et al.  Skin Sensitisation and Epidermal Disposition: The Relevance of Epidermal Disposition for Sensitisation Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment , 2007, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[23]  Cameron MacKay,et al.  Development of a Modified In vitro Skin Absorption Method to Study the Epidermal/Dermal Disposition of a Contact Allergen in Human Skin , 2008, Cutaneous and ocular toxicology.

[24]  G. Kasting,et al.  Two‐stage kinetic analysis of fragrance evaporation and absorption from skin , 2003, International journal of cosmetic science.