A Reassessment of the In Vitro RBC Haemolysis Assay with Defibrinated Sheep Blood for the Determination of the Ocular Irritation Potential of Cosmetic Products: Comparison with the In Vivo Draize Rabbit Test
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2008
A Reassessment of the In Vitro RBC Haemolysis Assay with Defibrinated Sheep Blood for the Determination of the Ocular Irritation Potential of Cosmetic Products: Comparison with the In Vivo Draize Rabbit Test
We examined the correlation between results obtained from the in vivo Draize test for ocular irritation and in vitro results obtained from the sheep red blood cell (RBC) haemolytic assay, which assesses haemolysis and protein denaturation in erythrocytes, induced by cosmetic products. We sought to validate the haemolytic assay as a preliminary test for identifying highly-irritative products, and also to evaluate the in vitro test as alternative assay for replacement of the in vivo test. In vitro and in vivo analyses were carried out on 19 cosmetic products, in order to correlate the lesions in the ocular structures with three in vitro parameters: (i) the extent of haemolysis (H50); (ii) the protein denaturation index (DI); and (iii) the H50/DI ratio, which reflects the irritation potential (IP). There was significant correlation between maximum average scores (MAS) and the parameters determined in vitro (r = 0.752–0.764). These results indicate that the RBC assay is a useful and rapid test for use as a screening method to assess the IP of cosmetic products, and for predicting the IP value with a high level of concordance (94.7%). The assay showed high sensitivity and specificity rates of 91.6% and 100%, respectively.
DraizeJ.H., WoodardG. & CalveryH.O. (1944). Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics83, 377–390.
2.
VinardellM.P. & GarciaL. (2000). The quantitative chorioallantoic membrane test using trypan blue stain to predict the eye irritancy of liquid scintillation cocktails. Toxicology in Vitro14, 551–555.
WorthA.P. & BallsM. (eds) (2002). Alternative (non-animal) methods for chemicals testing: Current status and future prospects. ATLA30, Suppl. 1, 125pp.
5.
BallsM., BothamP.A., BrunerL.H. & SpielmannH. (1995). The EC/HO international validation study on alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test for classification and labeling of chemicals. Toxicology in Vitro9, 871–929.
6.
BrantomP.G., BrunerL.H., ChamberlainM., DeSilvaO., DupuisJ., EarlL.K., LovellD.P., PapeW.J.W., UttleyM., BagleyD.M., BakerF.W., BracherM., CoutellemantP., DeclercqI., FreemanS., SteilingW., WalkerA.P., CarrG.J., DamiN., ThomasG., HarbellJ., JonesP.A., PfannenbeckerU., SoutheeJ.A., TchengM., ArgembeauxH., CastelliD., ClothierR.H., EsdaileD.J., ItigakiH., JungK., KasaiY., KojimaH., KristenU., LarnicolM., LewisR.W., MarenusK., MorenoO., PetersonA., RosmussenE.S., RoblesC. & SternM. (1997). A summary report of the COLIPA international validation study on alternatives to the Draize rabbit eye irritation test. Toxicology in Vitro11, 141–179.
7.
SpielmannH., GernerI., KalweitS., MoogR., WirnserbergerT., KrauserK., KreilingR., KreuzerH., LuepkeN.P., MiltenburgerH.G., MullerP., PapeW., SiegmundB., SpenglerJ., SteilingW. & WiebelF.J. (1991). Interlaboratory assessment of alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test in Germany. Toxicology in Vitro5, 539–542.
8.
SpielmannH., KalweitS., LiebschM., WirnserbergerT., GernerI., Bertram-NeisE., KrauserK., KreilingR., MiltenburgerH.G., PapeW. & SteilingW. (1993). Validation study of alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test in Germany: cytotoxicity testing and HET-CAM test with 136 industrial chemicals. Toxicology in Vitro7, 505–510.
9.
SpielmannH., KalweitS., LiebschM., MoldenhauerF., WirnserbergerT., HolzhütterH.G., SchneiderB., GlaserS., GernerI., PapeW., KreilingR., KrauserK., MiltenburgerH.G., SteilingW., LuepkeN.P., MüllerN., KreuzerH., MürmannP., SpenglerJ., Bertam-NeisE., SiegmundB. & WiebelF.J. (1996). Results of validation study in Germany on two in vitro alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test, the HET-CAM test and the 3T3 NRU cytotoxicity test. ATLA24, 741–858.
10.
GettingsS.D., BagleyD.M., DemetrullasJ.L., DiPasqualeL.C., HintzeK.L., RozenM.G., TealJ.J., WeiseS.L., ChudkowskiM., MarenusK.D., PapeW.J.W., RoddyM.T., SchnetzingerR., SilberP.M., GlazaS.M. & KurtzP.J. (1991). The CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program. An evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize Primary Eye Irritation Test. Phase I: Hydroalcoholic formulations. Part 2: Data analysis and biological significance. In Vitro Toxicology4, 247–288.
11.
GettingsS.D., BagleyD.M., ChudkowskiM., DemetrullasJ.L., DiPasqualeL.C., GalliC.L., GayR., HintzeK.L., JanusJ., MarenusK.D., MuscatielloM.J., PapeW.J.W., RenskersK.J., RoddyM.T. & SchnetzingerR. (1992). Development of potential alternatives to the Draize eye test: The CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program. Phase II: Review of materials and methods. ATLA20, 164–171.
12.
GettingsS.D., BagleyD.M., CastertonM., ChudkowskiM., CurrenR.D., DemetrullasJ.L., DiPasqualeL.C., FederP.I., GalliC.L., GayR., GlazaS.M., HintzeK.L., JanusJ., KurtzP.J., LordoR.A., MarenusK.D., MoralJ., MuscatielloM.J., PapeW.J.W., RenskersK.J., RoddyM.T. & RozenM.G. (1994). The CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program. An evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize Primary Eye Irritation Test. Phase II: Oil/water emulsions. Food & Chemical Toxicology32, 943–976.
13.
GettingsS.D., LordoR.A., HintzeK.L., BagleyD.M., CastertonP.L., ChudkowskiM., CurrenR.D., DemetrullasJ.L., DiPasqualeL.C., EarlL.K., FederP.I., GalliC.L., GlazaS.M., GordonV.C., JanusJ., KurtzP.J., MarenusK.D., MoralJ., PapeW.J., RenskersK.J., RheinsL.A., RoddyM.T., RozenM.G., TedeschiJ.P. & ZyrackiJ. (1996). The CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program. An evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize Primary Eye Irritation Test. Phase III: Surfactant-based formulations. Food & Chemical Toxicology34, 79–117.
14.
BradlawJ., GuptaK., GreenS., HillR. & WilcoxN. (1997). Practical application of non-whole animal alternatives: Summary of IRAG workshop on eye irritation testing. Interagency Regulatory Alternatives Group. Food & Chemical Toxicology35, 175–178.
15.
OhnoY., KanekoT., KobayashiT., InoueT., KuroiwaY., YoshidaT., MommaJ., HayashiM., AkiyamaJ., AtsumiT., ChibaK., EndoT., FujiiA., KakishimaH., KojimaH., MasamotoK., MasudaM., MatsukawaS., OskoshiK., OkadaJ., SakamotoK., TakanoK. & TakanakaA. (1994). First-phase validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests for cosmetic ingredients. In Vitro Toxicology7, 89–94.
16.
IsommaB., LiluisH. & WestA. (1992). Evaluation of cytotoxicity of the first twenty EIC chemicals by using haemolysis of human erythrocytes as an end-point. ATLA20, 226–229.
17.
OhnoY., KanekoT., KobayashiT., InoueT., KuroiwaY., YoshidaT., MommaJ., AyashiM., AkiyamaJ., AtsumiT., ChibaK., EndoT., FujiiA., KakishimaH., KojimaH., MasamotoK., MasudaM., MatsukawaK., OhkoshiK., OkadJ., SakamotoK., TakanoK., SuzukiT. & TakanakaA. (1995). First phase inter-laboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation test for cosmetic ingredients: (1) Overview, organization and results of the validation study. AATEX3, 123–136.
18.
OkamotoY., KanzakiN. & TanakaN. (1990). Studies of an in vitro alternative method to the Draize rabbit eye irritation test. Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists23, 272–279.
19.
OkamotoY., OhkoshiK., ItagakiH., HaginoS., InoueK., ShibataM., KakishimaH., OgawaT., KonishiK., SakamotoK., TakinoY., KanariM., MatsukawaK., MasudaK., KojimaH., ChibaK., MakinoI., KanekoT., HiroseA., OhnoY. & TakanakaA. (1995). First phase inter-laboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation test for cosmetic ingredients: (3) Evaluation of hemolysis test. AATEX3, 146–153.
20.
PapeW.J.W., PfannenbeckerU. & HoppeU. (1987). Validation of the red blood cell test system as in vitro assay for rapid screening of irritation potential of surfactants. Molecular Toxicology1, 525–536.
21.
PapeW.J.W. & HoppeU. (1990). Standardization of an in vitro red blood cell test for evaluation the acute cytotoxicity potential of tensides. Drug Research40, 498–502.
22.
PapeW.J.W. & HoppeU. (1991). In vitro methods for the assessment of primary local effects of topically applied preparations. Skin Pharmacology4, 205–212.
23.
KayJ.H. & CalandraJ.C. (1963). Interpretation of eye irritation tests. Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists13, 281–289.
24.
PerutzM.F. (1974). Mechanism of denaturation of haemoglobin by alkali. Nature247, 341–344.
25.
GloxhuberC. (1974). Toxicological properties of surfactants. Archives of Toxicology32, 245–270.
26.
KondoT. (1976). Mechanism of hemolysis by surface-active agents. Advances in Colloid & Interface Science6, 139–172.
27.
MacDonaldV.W. (1994). Measuring relative rates of hemoglobin oxidation and denaturation. Methods in Enzymology231, 481–490.
HataoM., MurakamiN., SakamotoK., OhnumaM., MatsushigeC., KakishimaH., OgawaT., KojimaH., MatsukawaK., MasudaK., ChibaK., YoshizawaK., KanekoT., IwabuchiY., MatsushimaY., MommaJ. & OhnoY. (1999). Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests for cosmetic ingredients. (4) Haemoglobin denaturation test. Toxicology in Vitro13, 125–137.
30.
OkamotoY., OhkoshiK., ItagakiH., TsudaT., KakishimaH., OgawaT., KasaiY., OhuchiJ., KojimaH., KurishitaA., KanekoT., MatsushimaY., IwabuchiY. & OhnoY. (1999). Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests for cosmetic ingredients. (3) Evaluation of the haemolysis test. Toxicology in Vitro13, 115–124.
31.
LiebschM. & SpielmannH. (2002). Currently available in vitro methods used in the regulatory toxicology. Toxicology Letters127, 127–134.
32.
IndansI. (2002). The use and interpretation of in vitro data in regulatory toxicology cosmetics, toiletries and household products. Toxicology Letters127, 177–182.
