Liverpool John Moores University and FRAME recently conducted a research project, sponsored by DEFRA, on the status of alternatives to animal testing with regard to the European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The project covered all the main toxicity endpoints associated with the REACH system. This report focuses on how to maximise the use of alternative methods (both in vitro and in silico) for skin corrosion and irritation testing within a tiered testing strategy. It considers the latest developments in in vitro testing, with particular reference to the reconstituted skin models which have now been now been successfully validated and independently endorsed as suitable for both skin corrosivity and irritancy testing within the EU.
GrindonC., CombesR., CroninM.T.D., RobertsD.W., & GarrodJ. (2006). A review of the status of alternative approaches to animal testing and the development of integrated testing strategies for assessing the toxicity of chemicals under REACH — A summary of a DEFRA-funded project conducted by Liverpool John Moores University and FRAME. ATLA34 Suppl. 1, 149–158.
2.
Anon. (2006). DEFRA Science and Research: Review of the status of the development of the alternatives to using animals in chemical safety testing and identification of new areas for development or research in the context of the proposed REACH regulations (CB01067). Available at: http://www2.defra.gov.uk/research/project_data/more.asp?I=CB01067&M=KWS&V=reach&scope=0 (Accessed 01.03.06).
3.
GrindonC., CombesR., CroninM.T.D., RobertsD.W., & GarrodJ.F. (2006). Integrated testing strategies for use in REACH. ATLA34, 407–427.
4.
EffendyI., LofflerH., & MaibachH.I. (2000). Epidermal cytokines in murine cutaneous irritant responses. Journal of Applied Toxicology20, 335–341.
5.
WelssT., BasketterD.A., & SchroderK.R. (2004). In vitro skin irritation: facts and future. State of the art review of mechanisms and models. Toxicology in Vitro18, 231–243.
6.
GarleM.J., & FryJ.R. (2003). Sensory nerves, neurogenic inflammation and pain: Missing components of alternative irritation strategies? A review and a potential strategy. ATLA31, 295–316.
FentemJ.H., ArcherG.E.B., BallsM., BothamP.A., CurrenR.D., EarlL.K., EsdaileD.J., HolzhütterH.G., & LiebschM. (1998). The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro tests for skin corrosivity. 2. Results and evaluation by the Management Team. Toxicology in Vitro12, 483–524.
10.
LiebschM., TraueD., BarrabasC., SpielmannH., UphillP., WilkinsS., WiemannC., KaufmannT., RemmeleM., & HolzhütterH.G. (2000). The ECVAM prevalidation study on the use of EpiDerm for skin corrosivity testing. ATLA28, 371–401.
11.
KandárováH., LiebschM., SpielmannH., GenschowE., SchmidtE., TraueD., GuestR., WhittinghamA., WarrenN., GamerA.O., RemmeleM., KaufmannT., WittmerE., De WeverB., & RodsyM. (2006). Assessment of the human epidermis model SkinEthic RHE for in vitro skin corrosion testing of chemicals according to new OECD TG 431. Toxicology in Vitro20, 547–559.
12.
ESAC (1998). Statement on the scientific validity of the EPISKIN™ test (an in vitro test for skin corrosivity). ATLA26, 277–280.
13.
ESAC (1998). Statement on the scientific validity of the rat skin transcutaneous electrical resistance (TER) test (an in vitro test for skin corrosivity). ATLA26, 275–277.
14.
ESAC (2000). Statement on the application of the Epiderm™ human skin model for skin corrosivity testing. ATLA28, 365–366.
15.
NIH (1999). Corrositex®: An In Vitro Test Method for Assessing Dermal Corrosivity Potential of Chemicals. The Corrositex® Assay Peer Review Meeting Final Report, ICCVAM and NICEATM, NIH Publication No. 99-4495, 236 pp. Research Triangle Park, NC, USA: US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Available at: http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/docs/reports/corprrep.pdf (Accessed 22.11.07).
16.
ECVAM (2000). Statement on the application of the Corrositex® assay for skin corrosivity testing. ATLA29, 96–97.
BarlowA., HirstR.A., PembertonM.A., RigdenA., HallT.J., BothamP.A., & OliverG.J.A. (1991). Refinement of an in vitro test for the identification of skin corrosive chemicals. Toxicology Methods1, 106–115.
19.
OliverG.J.A., PembertonM.A., & RhodesC. (1986). An in vitro skin corrosivity test; modifications and validation. Food and Chemical Toxicology24, 507–512.
20.
OliverG.J.A., PembertonM.A., & RhodesC. (1988). An in vitro model for identifying skin corrosive chemicals. Initial validation. Toxicology in Vitro2, 7–17.
21.
OliverG.J.A. (1990). The evaluation of cutaneous toxicity: past and future. In Skin Pharmacology and Toxicology: Recent Advances (ed. GalliC.L., HensbyC.N., & MarinovichM.), pp. 147–173. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press.
22.
MosmannT. (1983). Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: Application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. Journal of Immunological Methods65, 55–63.
23.
DenizotF., & LangR. (1986). Rapid colorimetric assay for cell growth and survival — modification to the tetrazolium dye procedure giving improved sensitivity and reliability. Journal of Immunological Methods89, 271–277.
24.
HoffmanJ., HeiserE., KarpinskiS., LosseJ., ThomasD., SiefkenW., AhrH-J., VohrH-W., & FuchsH.W. (2005). Epidermal-Skin-Test 1000 (EST 1000) — A new reconstituted epidermis for in vitro skin corrosivity testing. Toxicology in Vitro19, 925–929.
25.
RoggebandR., ScailteurV., & BasketterD.A. (1999). Human volunteer studies; a consumer products company view. Human & Experimental Toxicology18, 591–593.
26.
FentemJ.H., BriggsD., ChesnéC., ElliottG.R., HarbellJ.W., HeylingsJ.R., PortesP., RoguetR., van de SandtJ.J.M., & BothamP.A. (2001). A prevalidation study on in vitro tests for acute skin irritation: results and evaluation by the Management Team. Toxicology in Vitro15, 57–93.
27.
ZuangV., BallsM., BothamP.A., CoquetteA., CorsiniE., CurrenR.D., ElliottG.R., FentemJ.H., HeylingsJ.R., LiebschM., MedinaJ., RoguetR., van de SandtH., WiemannC., & WorthA.P. (2002). Follow-up to the ECVAM prevalidation study on in vitro tests for acute skin irritation. ECVAM Skin Irritation Task Force Report 2. ATLA30, 109–129.
28.
FentemJ.H., & BothamP.A. (2002). ECVAM's activities in validating alternative tests for skin corrosion and irritation. ATLA30 Suppl. 2, 61–67.
29.
CotovioJ., GrandidierM-H., PortesP., RoguetR., & RubinstennG. (2005). The in vitro acute skin irritation of chemicals: Optimisation of the EPISKIN Prediction Model within the framework of the ECVAM validation process. ATLA33, 329–349.
30.
KandárováH., LiebschM., GernerI., SchmidtE., GenschowE., TraueD., & SpielmannH. (2005). The EpiDerm test protocol for the upcoming ECVAM validation study on in vitro irritation tests — An assessment of the performance of the optimised test. ATLA33, 351–376.
31.
BothamP.A. (2004). The validation of in vitro methods for skin irritation. Toxicology Letters149, 387–390.
32.
ECVAM (2007). Statement on the validity of in vitro tests for skin irritation. ATLA35, 308–312.
33.
SpielmannH., HoffmannS., LiebschM., BothamP., FentemJ.H., EskesC., RoguetR., CotovioJ., ColeT., WorthA., HeylingsJ., JonesP., RoblesC., KandárováH., GamerA., RemmeleM., CurrenR., RaabeH., CockshottA., GernerI., & ZuangV. (2007). The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro tests for acute skin irritation: Report on the validity of the EPISKIN and EpiDerm assays and on the Skin Integrity Function Test. ATLA35, 559–601.
34.
KandárováH., LiebschM., SchmidtE., GenschowE., TraueD., SpielmannH., MeyerK., SteinhoffC., TornierC., De WeverB., & RosdyM. (2006). Assessment of the skin irritation potential of chemicals by using the SkinEthic Reconstituted Human Epidermal Model and the Common Skin Irritation Protocol evaluated in the ECVAM Skin Irritation Validation Study. ATLA34, 393–406.
35.
WalkerJ.D., GernerI., HulzebosE., & SchlegelK. (2004). (Q)SARs for predicting skin irritation and corrosion: mechanisms, transparency and applicability of predictions. QSAR & Combinatorial Science23, 721–725.
36.
BarrattM.D. (1995). Quantitative structure–activity-relationships for skin corrosivity of organic-acids, bases and phenols. Toxicology Letters75, 169–176.
37.
BarrattM.D. (1996). Quantitative structure–activity relationships for skin irritation and corrosivity of neutral and electrophilic organic chemicals. Toxicology in Vitro10, 247–256.
38.
BarrattM.D., DixitM.B., & JonesP.A. (1996). The use of in vitro cytotoxicity measurements in QSAR methods for the prediction of the skin corrosivity potential of acids. Toxicology in Vitro10, 283–290.
39.
ErikssonL., BerglindR., & SjostromM. (1994). A multivariate quantitative structure–activity relationship for corrosive carboxylic acids. Chemometrics & Intelligent Laboratory Systems23, 235–245.
40.
PatlewiczG., RodfordR., & WalkerJ.D. (2003). Quantitative structure–activity relationships for predicting skin and eye irritation. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry22, 1862–1869.
41.
KodithalaK., HopfingerA.J., ThompsonE.D., & RobinsonM.K. (2002). Prediction of skin irritation from organic chemicals using membrane-interaction QSAR analysis. Toxicological Sciences66, 336–346.
42.
GernerI., SchlegelK., WalkerJ.D., & HulzebosE. (2004). Use of physicochemical property limits to develop rules for identifying chemical substances with no skin irritation or corrosion potential. QSAR & Combinatorial Science23, 726–733.
43.
HulzebosE., WalkerJ.D., GernerI., & SchlegelK. (2004). Use of structural alerts to develop rules for identifying chemical substances with skin irritation or skin corrosion potential. QSAR & Combinatorial Science24, 332–342.
44.
OECD (2004). OECD Series on Testing and Assessment. No. 49 — The Report from the Expert Group on (Quantitative) Structure–Activity Relationships [(Q)SARs] on the Principles for the Validation of (Q)SARs, 206 pp. Paris, France: OECD. Available at: http://appli1.oecd.org/olis/2004doc.nsf/linkto/env-jm-mono(2004)24 (Accessed 22.11.07).
45.
CombesR.D., GauntI., & BallsM. (2004). A scientific and animal welfare assessment of the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines for the safety testing of chemicals under the European Union REACH system. ATLA32, 163–208.
OsborneR., & PerkinsM.A. (1994). An approach for development of alternative test methods based on mechanisms of skin irritation. Food & Chemical Toxicology32, 133–142.
48.
FielderR.J., GauntI.F., RhodesC., SullivanF.M., & SwanstonD.W. (1987). Hierarchial approach to the assessment of dermal and ocular irritancy: a report by the British Toxicological Society Working Party on irritancy. Human Toxicology6, 269–278.
WorthA.P., FentemJ.H., BallsM., BothamP.A., CurrenR.D., EarlL.K., EsdaileD.J., & LiebschM. (1998). An evaluation of the proposed OECD testing strategy for skin corrosion. ATLA26, 709–720.
51.
WorthA.P., & CroninM.T.D. (2001). The use of pH measurements to predict the potential of chemicals to cause acute dermal and ocular toxicity. Toxicology169, 119–131.
52.
RobinsonM.K., CohenC., de Brugerolle de FraissinetteA., PonecM., WhittleE., & FentemJ.H. (2002). Non-animal testing strategies for assessment of the skin corrosion and skin irritation potential of ingredients and finished products. Food & Chemical Toxicology40, 573–592.
53.
AugustinC., CollombelC., & DamourO. (1998). Use of dermal equivalent and skin equivalent models for in vitro cutaneous irritation testing of cosmetic products: comparison with in vivo human data. Journal of Toxicology: Cutaneous & Ocular Toxicology17, 5–17.
54.
RoguetR., CohenC., RoblesC., CourtellemontP., TolleM., GuillotJ.P., & Pouradier DuteilX. (1998). An interlaboratory study of the reproducibility and relevance of Episkin, reconstructed human epidermis, in the assessment of cosmetics irritancy. Toxicology in Vitro12, 295–304.
55.
LangleyG. (2001). The Way Forward — Action to End Animal Toxicity Testing, 36 pp. London, UK: British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV).
56.
GriffithsH.A., WilhelmK.P., RobinsonM.K., WangX.M., McFaddenJ., YorkM., & BasketterD.A. (1997). Interlaboratory evaluation of a human patch test for the identification of skin irritation potential/hazard. Food & Chemical Toxicology35, 255–260.
57.
HeylingsJ.R., ClowesH.M., & HughesL. (2001). Comparison of tissue sources for the skin integrity function test (SIFT). Toxicology in Vitro13, 597–600.
58.
HeylingsJ.R., DiotS., EsdaileD.J., FasanoW.J., ManningL.A., & OwenH.M. (2003). A prevalidation study on the in vitro skin irritation function test (SIFT) for prediction of acute skin irritation in vivo: results and evaluation of ECVAM Phase III. Toxicology in Vitro17, 123–138.
59.
Van de SandtJ.J.M., MaasW.J.M., DoorninkP.C., & RuttenA.A.J.J.L. (1995). Release of arachidonic and linoleic acid metabolites in skin organ cultures as characteristics of in vitro skin irritancy. Fundamental & Applied Toxicology25, 20–28.
60.
Van de SandtJ.J.M., MeulingW.J.A., ElliottG.R., CnubbenN.H.P., & HakkertB.C. (2000). Comparative in vitro–in vivo percutaneous absorption of the pesticide propoxur. Toxicological Sciences58, 15–22.
61.
Van de SandtJ.J.M., RuttenA.A.J.J.L., & KoëterH.B.W.M. (1991). A new two-compartment skin model for cutaneous toxicity testing. In Alternative Methods in Toxicology, Vol. 8 (ed. GoldbergA.M., & PrincipeM.L.), pp. 363–369. New York, NY, USA: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
62.
Van de SandtJ.J.M., van SchoonhovenJ., MaasW.J.M., & RuttenA.A.J.J.L. (1993). Skin organ culture as an alternative to in vivo dermatotoxicity testing. ATLA21, 443–449.
63.
KlöckingH-P., SchlegelmilchU., & KlöckingR. (1994). Assessment of membrane toxicity using [3H]-AA release in U937 cells. Toxicology in Vitro8, 775–777.
64.
GötteE. (1966). Synthetische Tenside in medizinisch-kosmetischen Hadern. Aesthetische Medizin10, 313–319.
