4.4 Article

In chemico, in vitro and in vivo comparison of the skin sensitizing potential of eight unsaturated and one saturated lipid compounds

期刊

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 90, 期 -, 页码 262-276

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.09.023

关键词

Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA); KeratinoSens (TM) assay; Human cell line activation test (h-CLAT); Cosmetic Products Regulation; Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH); Classification and labelling of substances; Octanol-water partition coefficient (log K-ow); Non-animal test methods; Skin sensitisation

资金

  1. EFfCI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The applicability of the Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA), the KeratinoSens (TM) assay and the human cell line activation test (OECD Test Guidelines 442C, 442D, 442E) in predicting the skin sensitising potential of nine lipid (bio)chemicals was investigated. The results from the three assays were integrated using a published prediction model (PM), by which skin sensitisation is predicted if at least two of the three assays yield positive results. Of the eight test substances that were classified as non-sensitisers using available Guinea Pig Maximisation Test (GPMT) data, only five were correctly predicted as 'negative' in the PM. (However, only two were correctly predicted as 'negative' in the murine Local Lymph Node Assay.) The one lipid (bio)chemical that tested positive in the GPMT was also positive applying the PM. Based upon the outcome of the present study, lipid (bio)chemicals with a log K-ow up to 7-8 appear amenable to the three assays. However, solubility problems, that were not evident initially, affected the performance of the DPRA. Further investigations are merited to address the conclusiveness of negative test results with concurrent lack of cytotoxicity in the in vitro assays, to evaluate if poorly soluble substances come into contact with the cells. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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