2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.05.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating the sensitization potential of surfactants: Integrating data from the local lymph node assay, guinea pig maximization test, and in vitro methods in a weight-of-evidence approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
32
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
32
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The KeratinoSens™ assay has been tested against a broad range of low molecular weight chemicals with known skin sensitization potential (Ball et al 2011;Delaine et al 2011Delaine et al , 2014Emter et al 2010;Natsch et al 2013aNatsch et al , b, 2015O'Boyle et al 2012;Urbisch et al 2015), and it was found to respond to skin sensitizers from a broad range of socalled mechanistic applicability domains, i.e., chemicals reacting with proteins by different mechanisms.…”
Section: Predictivity For Animal Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The KeratinoSens™ assay has been tested against a broad range of low molecular weight chemicals with known skin sensitization potential (Ball et al 2011;Delaine et al 2011Delaine et al , 2014Emter et al 2010;Natsch et al 2013aNatsch et al , b, 2015O'Boyle et al 2012;Urbisch et al 2015), and it was found to respond to skin sensitizers from a broad range of socalled mechanistic applicability domains, i.e., chemicals reacting with proteins by different mechanisms.…”
Section: Predictivity For Animal Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the LLNA often classifies irritating surfactants as positives, while they are (1) not reported as human sensitizers, (2) clearly negative in the guinea pig assays and (3) devoid of any structural alerts for reactivity and sensitization. A series of such "LLNA falsepositive" surfactants was "correct-negative" when tested in KeratinoSens™ (Ball et al 2011). On the other hand, some Michael acceptors (α, β-unsaturated compounds) are reported as negative in the LLNA despite clear structural alerts, direct peptide reactivity and positive human data.…”
Section: Predictivity For Animal Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The mouse in vivo local lymph node assay (LLNA) is currently the preferred test for predicting the skin sensitization potential of novel chemicals (OECD, 2010;Ball et al, 2011). Not only does the OECD Test Guideline (TG) 429 recommend using the LLNA method to predict skin sensitization potential for novel chemicals, it also provides a reference chemical list of human skin irritants and sensitizers.…”
Section: Nhks Produce Vegf and Il-8 In Response To Pro-inflammatory Cmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even though the LLNA is validated as a stand-alone assay for sensitization testing, there are several drawbacks to it such as false positives, e.g., irritants, and false negatives, e.g., metal allergens (Ikarashi et al 1992(Ikarashi et al , 1993Montelius et al 1994;Mandervelt et al 1997;Montelius et al 1998;Vohr and Ahr 2005;Basketter et al 2009;Ball et al 2011). Interesting results were shown for an array of mostly Abstract Unsaturated compounds are known to cause false-positive reactions in the local lymph node assay (LLNA) but not in the guinea pig maximization test.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%