Determination of U-SENS™ borderline range thresholds to address uncertainty for skin sensitization assessment in a regulatory context
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Skin sensitization is an endpoint in the safety evaluation of chemicals. OECD guideline 497 includes three defined approaches (DAs) integrating new approach methodologies (NAMs) for skin sensitization hazard identification or UN GHS potency categorization. The “2 out of 3” (2o3) DA predicts skin sensitization hazard by sequentially testing in up to three NAMs covering key events (KEs) 1-3 of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP). To increase flexibility, OECD is considering the adoption of “alternate” NAMs in guideline 497 targeting the same AOP KE as in test guidelines 442C, 442D, 442E. This study evaluated the feasibility of substituting the h-CLAT with U-SENS™ in the 2o3 DA as NAM for AOP KE 3. To define areas where uncertainty may exist in U-SENS™ predictions, borderline range thresholds around the 150% CD86 stimulation index (SI) cut-off were calculated using a log pooled median absolute deviation method. A revised U-SENS™ prediction model implementing these thresholds classifies a chemical as positive (SI > 176%), negative (SI < 128%), or borderline (128 ≤ SI ≤ 176%). Application of the model changed the U-SENS™ predictions for 35 of 191 chemicals in the OECD database. Substituting the h-CLAT with U-SENS™ in the 2o3 DA resulted in a balanced accuracy of 71% against LLNA (n=168) and 77% against human data (n=66), without considering borderline range thresholds. Incorporating thresholds improved the balanced accuracy to 77% (LLNA, n=142) and 88% (human, n=55). These findings support the inclusion of the U-SENS™ and its borderline range thresholds in OECD guideline 497.
Plain language summary
OECD guideline 497 includes three defined approaches (DAs) that combine non-animal test methods to assess a chemical’s potential to cause skin sensitization. The “2 out of 3” (2o3) DA, tests chemicals sequentially using up to three methods that address different mechanistic key events in the skin sensitization process. This study explored the feasibility of substituting the h-CLAT with the U-SENS™ method, which target the same key event, in the 2o3 DA. Borderline range thresholds were established for U-SENS™, allowing chemicals to be classified as positive, negative or borderline for skin sensitization. Using the U-SENS™ instead of the h-CLAT maintained the ability of 2o3 DA to identify chemicals causing skin sensitization, and applying borderline range thresholds for the three methods improved the accuracy of the DA. These findings support the inclusion of the U-SENS™ and its borderline range thresholds in OECD guideline 497.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is appropriately cited (CC-BY). Copyright on any article in ALTEX is retained by the author(s).
Ade, A., Teluob, S., Viricel, A. et al. (2022). Amending the U-SENS™ skin sensitization test method for interfering auto-fluorescent chemicals. Toxicol In Vitro 81, 105353. doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2022.105353
Alépée, N., Piroird, C., Aujoulat, M. et al. (2015). Prospective multicentre study of the U-SENS test method for skin sensitization testing. Toxicol In Vitro 30, 373-382. doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2015.09.028
Alinaghi, F., Bennike, N. H., Egeberg, A. et al. (2019). Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Contact dermatitis 80, 77-85. doi:10.1111/cod.13119
Ashikaga, T., Yoshida, Y., Hirota, M. et al. (2006). Development of an in vitro skin sensitization test using human cell lines: the human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT). I. Optimization of the h-CLAT protocol. Toxicol In Vitro 20, 767-773. doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2005.10.012
Assaf Vandecasteele, H., Gautier, F., Tourneix, F. et al. (2021). Next generation risk assessment for skin sensitisa-tion: A case study with propyl paraben. Regul Toxicol Pharmaco 123, 104936. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2021.104936
Casati, S., Asturiol, D., Browne, P. et al. (2022). Standardisation and international adoption of defined approaches for skin sensitisation. Front Toxicol 4, 943152. doi:10.3389/ftox.2022.943152
DB-ALM (2016). Protocol no. 183: Myeloid U937 Skin Sensitization Test (U-SENS™). Available at: http://cidportal.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ftp/jrc-opendata/EURL-ECVAM/datasets/DBALM/LATEST/online/DBALM_docs/183_P_usens.pdf
EURL ECVAM (2012). Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) ECVAM Validation Study Report. European Com-mission, Joint Research Centre, 74 pp. Available at: https://tsar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/system/files/Published/DPRA%20Validation%20Study%20Report.pdf
EURL ECVAM (2017). The U-SENS™ test method Validation Study Report. Available at: http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_labs/eurl-ecvam/eurl-ecvam-recommendations
Gabbert, S., Mathea, M., Kolle, S. N. et al. (2022). Accounting for Precision Uncertainty of Toxicity Testing: Methods to Define Borderline Ranges and Implications for Hazard Assessment of Chemicals. Risk Anal 42, 224-238. doi:10.1111/risa.13648
Gilmour, N., Reynolds, J., Przybylak, K. et al. (2022). Next generation risk assessment for skin allergy: Decision making using new approach methodologies. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 131, 105159. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105159
Gilmour, N., Alépée, N., Hoffmann, S. et al. (2023). Applying a next generation risk assessment framework for skin sensitisation to inconsistent new approach methodology information. ALTEX 40, 439-451. doi:10.14573/altex.2211161
Gautier, F., Assaf Vandecasteele, H., Tourneix, F. et al. (2023). Skin sensitisation prediction using read-across, an illustrative next generation risk assessment (NGRA) case study for vanillin. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 143, 105458. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2023.105458
Hirota, M., Fukui, S., Okamoto, K. et al. (2015). Evaluation of combinations of in vitro sensitization test descriptors for the artificial neural network-based risk assessment model of skin sensitization. J Appl Toxicol 35, 1333-1347. doi:10.1002/jat.3105
Kasahara T, Yamamoto Y, Nakashima N, Imamura M, Mizumachi H, Suzuki S, Aiba S, Kimura Y, Ashikaga T, Kojima H, Ono A, Matsumoto K. (2025). Borderline Range Determined Using Data From Validation Study of Alternative Methods for Skin Sensitization: ADRA, IL-8 Luc Assay, and EpiSensA. J Appl Toxicol 45, 432-439. doi:10.1002/jat.4712
Kleinstreuer, N.C., Hoffmann, S., Alépée, N. et al. (2018). Non-animal methods to predict skin sensitisation (II): an assessment of defined approaches. Crit Rev Toxicol 48, 359-374. doi:10.1080/10408444.2018.1429386
Kolle, S. N., Mathea, M., Natsch, A. et al. (2021). Assessing Experimental Uncertainty in Defined Approaches: Bor-derline Ranges for In Chemico and In Vitro Skin Sensitization Methods Determined from Ring Trial Data. Appl In Vitro Toxicol 7, 102-111. doi:10.1089/aivt.2021.0003
Natsch, A., Caroline, B., Leslie, F. et al. (2011). The intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility and predictivity of the KeratinoSens assay to predict skin sensitizers in vitro: results of a ring-study in five laboratories. Toxicol In Vitro 25, 733-744. doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2010.12.014
Natsch, A., and Gerberick, G. F. (2022). Integrated skin sensitization assessment based on OECD methods (II): Hazard and potency by combining kinetic peptide reactivity and the "2 out of 3" Defined Approach. ALTEX 39, 647–655. doi:10.14573/altex.2201142
OECD (2014). The Adverse Outcome Pathway for Skin Sensitisation Initiated by Covalent Binding to Proteins, OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 168, OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264221444-en
OECD (2023a). Guideline No. 497: Defined Approaches on Skin Sensitisation, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4, OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/b92879a4-en
OECD (2023b). Supporting document to the OECD guideline 497 on defined approaches for skin sensitization. Se-ries on Testing and Assessment, No. 336, OECD Publishing, Paris. Available at: https://one.oecd.org/document/ENV/CBC/MONO(2021)11/en/pdf
OECD (2023c). Supporting document to the OECD guideline 497 on defined approaches for skin sensitization. Se-ries on Testing and Assessment, No. 336, OECD Publishing, Paris, Annex 2. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/Annex-2-in-vitro-in-silico-in-vivo-defined-approaches.xlsx
OECD (2024a). Test No. 442C: In Chemico Skin Sensitisation: Assays addressing the Adverse Outcome Pathway key event on covalent binding to proteins, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4, OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264229709-en
OECD (2024b). Test No. 442D: In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4, OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264229822-en
OECD (2024c). Test No. 442E: In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: In Vitro Skin Sensitisation assays addressing the Key Event on activation of dendritic cells on the Adverse Outcome Pathway for Skin Sensitisation, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4, OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264264359-en
Piroird, C., Ovigne, J. M., Rousset, F. et al. (2015). The Myeloid U937 Skin Sensitization Test (U-SENS) addresses the activation of dendritic cell event in the adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization. Toxicol In Vitro 29, 901-916. doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2015.03.009
Sakaguchi, H., Ashikaga, T., Miyazawa, M. et al. (2006). Development of an in vitro skin sensitization test using human cell lines; human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT). II. An inter-laboratory study of the h-CLAT. Toxicol In Vitro 20, 774-784. doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2005.10.014
SCCS (2023). The SCCS notes of guidance for the testing of cosmetic ingredients and their safety evaluation 12th revision. Available at: https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/32a999f7-d820-496a-b659-d8c296cc99c1_en?filename=sccs_o_273_final.pdf
Thyssen, J. P., Linneberg, A., Menné, T. et al. (2007). The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population--prevalence and main findings. Contact dermatitis 57, 287-299. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01220.x
Tourneix, F., Alépée, N., Detroyer, A. et al. (2020). Skin sensitisation testing in practice: Applying a stacking meta model to cosmetic ingredients. Toxicol In Vitro 66, 104831. doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2020.104831
Tourneix, F., Carron, L., Jouffe, L. et al. (2024). Deriving a Continuous Point of Departure for Skin Sensitization Risk Assessment Using a Bayesian Network Model. Toxics 12, 536. doi:10.3390/toxics12080536