Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Identification of Skin Allergens by In Vivo Assay

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Kanerva’s Occupational Dermatology

  • 171 Accesses

Abstract

In vivo assays for skin sensitization are valuable assets, but must not be regarded as 100% accurate.

Guinea pig methods have been superseded by the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) which is now in the process of being replaced by nonanimal alternatives.

Regulatory classification as a skin sensitizing chemical means that the substance is regarded as significantly active.

A substance which is not classified as a skin sensitizer may still possess a limited potential to cause this effect.

Potency categories are new to regulatory sensitization, but the LLNA EC3 value provides a useful guide to the relative potency of a skin sensitizer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Api AM, Basketter DA, Cadby PA, Cano M-F, Ellis G, Gerberick GF, Griem P, McNamee PM, Ryan CA, Safford B (2008) Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 52:3–23

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Api AM, Parakhia R, O’Brien D, Basketter DA (2017) Fragrances categorised according to their relative human skin sensitization potency. Dermatitis, 28:299–307

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Basketter DA (2008) Skin immunology and sensitisation. In: Chilcott RP, Price S (eds) Principles and practice of skin toxicology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 149–168

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Basketter DA (2010) Methyldibromo glutaronitrile, skin sensitisation and quantitative risk assessment. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 29:4–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basketter DA, Gerberick GF (1996) Interlaboratory evaluation of the Buehler test. Contact Dermatitis 35:146–151

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basketter DA, Kimber I (2010) Skin sensitization, false positives and false negatives: experience with guinea pig assays. J Appl Toxicol 30(5):381–386

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I (1998) Strategies for identifying false positive responses in predictive sensitization tests. Food Chem Toxicol 36:327–333

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basketter DA, Lea L, Cooper K, Dickens A, Briggs D, Pate I, Dearman RJ, Kimber I (1999) A comparison of statistical approaches to derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses. J Appl Toxicol 19:261–266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basketter DA, Andersen KE, Lidén C, van Loveren H, Boman A, Kimber I, Alanko K, Berggren E (2005) Evaluation of the skin sensitising potency of chemicals using existing methods and considerations of relevance for elicitation. Contact Dermatitis 52:39–43

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basketter DA, McFadden J, Evans P, Andersen KE, Jowsey I (2006) Identification and classification of skin sensitizers: identifying false positives and false negatives. Contact Dermatitis 55:268–273

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I (2007) The local lymph node assay EC3 value: status of validation. Contact Dermatitis 57:70–75

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basketter DA, Ball N, Cagen S, Carrillo J-C, Certa H, Eigler D, Esch H, Graham C, Haux D, Kreiling R, Mehling A (2009a) Application of a weight of evidence approach to analysing discordant sensitization datasets: implication for REACH. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 55:90–96

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basketter DA, McFadden JF, Gerberick GF, Cockshott A, Kimber I (2009b) Nothing is perfect, not even the local lymph node assay. A commentary and the implications for REACH. Contact Dermatitis 60:65–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basketter DA, Alepee N, Ashikaga T, Barroso J, Gilmour N, Goebel C, Hibatallah J, Hoffmann S, Kern P, Martinozzi-Teissier S, Maxwell G, Millet M, Reisinger K, Sakaguchi H, Schepky A, Tialhardat M, Templier M (2014) Categorisation of chemicals according to their relative human skin sensitizing potency. Dermatitis, 25: 11–21

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basketter DA, White IR, McFadden JP, Kimber I (2015) Skin sensitization: integration of clinical data into hazard identification and risk assessment. Hum Exp Toxicol 34:1222–1230

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buehler EV (1965) Delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Arch Dermatol 91:171–177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Casati S, Aeby P, Kimber I, Maxwell G, Ovigne JM, Roggen E, Rovida C, Tosti L, Basketter DA (2009) Selection of chemicals for the development and evaluation of in vitro methods for skin sensitisation testing. Altern Lab Anim 37:305–312

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities Regulation (2006) (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European parliament and of the council of 18 December 2006 concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH), establishing a European chemicals agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing council regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and commission regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as council directive 76/769/EEC and commission directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC,93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Off J Eur Union L 396/1 of 30 Dec 2006. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/reach/index_en.htm

  • Cronin MTD, Basketter DA (1994) Multivariate QSAR analysis of a skin sensitization database. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2:159–179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dean JH, Twerdok LE, Tice RR, Sailstad DM, Hattan DG, Stokes WS (2001) ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. II. Conclusions and recommendations of an independent scientific peer review panel. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 34:258–273

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ECHA (2015) Chapter R.7a: endpoint specific guidance. In: Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki, pp 256–288

    Google Scholar 

  • ECHA (2017) Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Chapter R7a: Endpoint specific guidance. Version 6.0, July 2017. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r7a_en.pdf/e4a2a18f-a2bd-4a04-ac6d-0ea425b2567f. Last accessed May 29th 2018.

  • Felter SP, Robinson MK, Basketter DA, Gerberick GF (2002) A review of the scientific basis for default uncertainty factors for use in quantitative risk assessment of the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 47:257–266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Felter SP, Ryan CA, Basketter DA, Gerberick GF (2003) Application of the risk assessment paradigm to the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 37:1–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frankild S, Basketter DA, Andersen KE (1996) The value and limitations of rechallenge in the guinea pig maximisation test. Contact Dermatitis 35:135–140

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Lea LJ, Basketter DA (2000) Local lymph node assay: validation assessment for regulatory purposes. Am J Contact Dermat 11:3–18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kern PS, Schlatter H, Dearman RJ, Kimber I, Patlewicz G, Basketter DA (2005) Compilation of historical local lymph node assay data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives. Dermatitis 16:157–202

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ICCVAM (2011) https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/iccvam/docs/immunotox_docs/llna-pot/tmer.pdf. Last accessed May 29th 2018

  • Kern PS, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kimber I, Aptula A, Basketter DA (2010) Historical local lymph node data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives: a second compilation. Dermatitis 21:8–32

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kimber I, Basketter DA (1992) The murine local lymph node assay; collaborative studies and new directions: A commentary. Food Chem Toxicol 30, 165–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kligman AM, Basketter DA (1995) A critical commentary and updating of the guinea pig maximisation test. Contact Dermatitis 32:129–134

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiling R, Hollnagel HM, Hareng L, Eigler D, Lee MS, Griem P, Dreesen B, Kleber M, Albrecht A, Garcia C, Wendel A (2008) Comparison of the skin sensitizing potential of unsaturated compounds and assessed by the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and the guinea pig maximization test (GPMT). Food Chem Toxicol 46:1896–1904

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson B, Kligman AM (1970) Allergic contact dermatitis in the guinea pig: identification of contact allergens. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, 141pp

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarry HF (2007) The murine local lymph node assay: regulatory and potency considerations under REACH. Toxicology 238:71–89

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • NICEATM (2010) LLNA Database. Available at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhealth/evalatm/test-method-evaluations/immunotoxicity/llna/index.html. Last accessed May 29th 2018

  • OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (1992) Guidelines for testing of chemicals no. 406. Skin sensitization. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2010a) Test guideline 429: the local lymph node assay. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2010b) Test guideline 442A and 442B: the local lymph node assay DA and BrdU ELISA. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2009) Globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS). Part 3: health hazards. United Nations, New York. http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_rev03/English/03e_part3.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • van Loveren H, Cockshott A, Gebel T, Gundert-Remy U, de Jong WH, Matheson J, McGarry H, Musset L, Selgrade MK, Vickers C (2008) Skin sensitization in chemical risk assessment: report of a WHO/IPCS international workshop focusing on dose–response assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 50(2):155–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wahlberg JE, Boman A (1985) Guinea pig maximization test. Curr Probl Dermatol 14:59–106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DABMEB Consultancy Ltd., Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire, UK

    David A. Basketter

Authors
  1. David A. Basketter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Basketter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Niedersachsen, Germany

    Swen Malte John

  2. Department of Dermato-allergology, Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark

    Jeanne Duus Johansen

  3. Dept. of Dermatology and Allergology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Thomas Rustemeyer

  4. Dept. of Dermatology and Allergology, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Thüringen, Germany

    Peter Elsner

  5. Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

    Howard I. Maibach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Basketter, D.A. (2018). The Identification of Skin Allergens by In Vivo Assay. In: John, S., Johansen, J., Rustemeyer, T., Elsner, P., Maibach, H. (eds) Kanerva’s Occupational Dermatology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40221-5_105-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40221-5_105-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-40221-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-40221-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation