4.5 Article

Porcine Corneal Ocular Reversibility Assay (PorCORA) predicts ocular damage and recovery for global regulatory agency hazard categories

Journal

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
Volume 25, Issue 8, Pages 1912-1918

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2011.06.008

Keywords

In vitro toxicology; Alternative toxicology methods; Ex vivo corneal assay; Long-term mammalian corneal culture; Ocular irritation reversibility; Corneal re-epithelization/healing

Categories

Funding

  1. Colgate-Palmolive/ Society of Toxicology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we examined the capacity of the Porcine Corneal Ocular Reversibility Assay (PorCORA) to classify the reversibility of ocular effects for 32 test compounds (20 reversible, 12 irreversible) from various chemical classes. PorCORA predicted 28 of 32 compounds correctly when compared to historical rabbit eye test data. The correlation coefficient for PorCORA versus historical rabbit test data was 0.84, based on the last day of damaged cornea reversal. These results demonstrate a high correlation between corneal irritation recovery time in the PorCORA and the rabbit eye. When compared to historical Modified Maximal Average Score (MMAS) in rabbit eyes. PorCORA yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.80, demonstrating ability to predict MMAS. PorCORA was highly predictive of regulatory agency ocular hazard classification categories, resulting in 91% accuracy for EU R41 and GHS Category 1. PorCORA was also predictive of EPA Category I (88% accuracy). Overall, the accuracy (88-91%), sensitivity (79-86%), specificity (94%), positive predictivity (94%), and negative predictivity (85-89%) for all three regulatory classifications indicate that ocular irritation hazardous effects were well predicted by the PorCORA. This study suggests that PorCORA could help discriminate between EU R36 and R41, GHS Categories 1 and 2, and EPA Categories I and II. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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