4.5 Article

Further experience with the local lymph node assay using standard radioactive and nonradioactive cell count measurements

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED TOXICOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 8, Pages 597-607

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jat.2754

Keywords

local lymph node assay; lymph node cell counts; skin sensitisation; non-radioactive methods; potency

Categories

Funding

  1. German Social Accident Insurance
  2. Cefic
  3. ECPA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In a previous study, the predictive capacity of a modified local lymph node assay (LLNA) based on cell counts, the LNCC, was demonstrated to be closely similar to that of the original assay. In addition, a range of substances, including some technical/commercial materials and a range of agrochemical formulations (n?=?180) have also been assessed in both methods in parallel. The results in the LNCC and LLNA were generally consistent, with 86% yielding an identical classification outcome. Discordant results were associated with borderline data and were evenly distributed between the two methods. Potency information derived from each method also demonstrated good consistency (n?=?101), with 93% of predictions being close. Skin irritation was observed only infrequently and was most commonly associated with positive results; it was not associated with the discordant results. Where different vehicles were used with the same test material, the effect on sensitizing activity was modest, consistent with historical data. Analysis of positive control data indicated that the LNCC and LLNA displayed similar levels of biological variation. When taken in combination with the previously published results on LLNA Performance Standard chemicals, it is concluded that the LNCC provides a viable non-radioactive alternative to the LLNA for the assessment of substances, including potency predictions, as well as for the evaluation of preparations. Copyright (c) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available