Don’t miss the interesting article in Chemical Risk Manager in Chemical Watch, written by Dr. Emma Davies, with the title; Skin sensitization integrated testing strategies need rethink, expert suggests.
Emma Davies is interviewing the UK academic Dr. David Roberts after his publication of an article in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology in July where he is discussing the relevance of Integrated Testing Strategy (ITS) for skin sensitization testing as well as he is presenting data on the performance of the GARDskin test method compared to the OECD -tests.
In short, David Roberts from Liverpool John Moores University questions the science behind integrated testing strategies (ITS) for combining in vitro test methods to predict skin sensitisation, as required by REACH. Instead, Roberts suggests, ”… that the genomic allergen rapid detection (GARD) assay for skin sensitisation may outperform other OECD validated test methods, either alone or in combination.”
“The failure of the ITS based on AOP logic does not mean that the AOP is wrong. What it does indicate is that the three OECD guideline assays do not truly or adequately reflect the KEs that they are assumed to model,” he says.
Further Emma writes in her article; “His analysis suggests that the genomic allergen rapid detection (GARD) assay for skin sensitisation may outperform other OECD validated test methods, either alone or in combination. A team from Lund University in Sweden developed the GARD test, which is sold by Swedish company Senzagen.”
Dr. David Roberts will present his data and the research behind the article at the EUSAAT meeting 23-26 September in Linz, and at the ESTIV conference 15-18 October in Berlin
Read the article here (requires subscription to Chemical Watch):