4.7 Article

Development of a 96-Well Electrophilic Allergen Screening Assay for Skin Sensitization Using a Measurement Science Approach

期刊

TOXICS
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/toxics10050257

关键词

skin sensitization; adverse outcome pathway; direct peptide reactivity assay; in vitro method; new approach methodology; measurement science; metrology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Electrophilic Allergen Screening Assay (EASA) is a promising method for detecting the first key event in the adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization. This study describes the redesign of EASA into a 96-well plate format that incorporates in-process control measurements to increase confidence in the assay results.
The Electrophilic Allergen Screening Assay (EASA) has emerged as a promising in chemico method to detect the first key event in the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization. This assay functions by assessing the depletion of one of two probe molecules (4-nitrobenzenethiol (NBT) and pyridoxylamine (PDA)) in the presence of a test compound (TC). The initial development of EASA utilized a cuvette format resulting in multiple measurement challenges such as low throughput and the inability to include adequate control measurements. In this study, we describe the redesign of EASA into a 96-well plate format that incorporates in-process control measurements to quantify key sources of variability each time the assay is run. The data from the analysis of 67 TCs using the 96-well format had 77% concordance with animal data from the local lymph node assay (LLNA), a result consistent with that for the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), an OECD test guideline (442C) protein binding assay. Overall, the measurement science approach described here provides steps during assay development that can be taken to increase confidence of in chemico assays by attempting to fully characterize the sources of variability and potential biases and incorporate in-process control measurements into the assay.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据