Tag Archive for: applicability domain

Evaluation of the applicability of GARDskin to predict skin sensitizers in extracts from medical device materials

Peer-reviewed article in Frontiers in Toxicology.

The application of GARD®skin to predict potential skin sensitizers in extracts from Medical Device materials has recently been published in a peer-reviewed article in Frontiers in Toxicology.

The study results provide evidence recognizing the GARD®skin Medical Device assay as a scientifically sound and ethical alternative to conventional animal methods, compatible with both polar and non-polar extraction vehicles, in line with the ISO 10993-12:2021 standard.

We are proud to provide the only OECD-validated in vitro assay for sensitization that is fully compatible with testing requirements specified in ISO 10993-12.

Jenvert Rose-Marie, Larne Olivia, Johansson Angelica, Berglin Mattias, Pedersen Emma, Johansson Henrik
Frontiers in Toxicology, Volume 6, 2024,ISSN 2673-3080
DOI=10.3389/ftox.2024.1320367

Keywords

GARD™; In vitro; Skin sensitisation; NAMs; Medical Device, ISO 10993, Biocompatibility

Abstract

Biocompatibility testing of medical devices is governed by the ISO 10993 series of standards and includes evaluation of skin sensitization potential of the final product. A majority of all medical devices are tested using in vivo methods, largely due to the lack of in vitro methods validated within the applicability domain of solid materials. The GARDskin method for assessment of chemical skin sensitizers is a validated method included in the OECD Test Guideline 442E, based on evaluation of transcriptional patterns of an endpoint-specific genomic biomarker signature in a dendritic cell-like cell, following test chemical exposure. The current study aimed to evaluate the applicability of GARDskin for the purpose of testing solid materials by incorporation of extraction procedures described in ISO 10993-12:2021, as well as to demonstrate the functionality of the proposed protocols, by testing of custom-made materials spiked with sensitizing agents. It was shown that GARDskin is compatible with both polar and non-polar extraction vehicles frequently used for the purpose of medical device biological testing. Further, exploring three different material types spiked with up to four different sensitizing agents, as well as three unspiked control materials and commercial reference products, it was shown that the method correctly classified all evaluated test materials. Taken together, the data presented suggest that GARDskin may constitute a valid alternative to in vivo experimentation for the purpose of skin sensitization assessment of medical devices.

 

Joint publication with Corteva Agriscience: GARD™skin and GARD™potency: A proof-of-concept study investigating applicability domain for agrochemical formulations

New joint publication with Corteva Agriscience.

SenzaGen scientists, alongside the toxicology team at Corteva Agriscience, have recently published a joint study in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, presenting new peer-reviewed evidence on the applicability of GARD® for agrochemical formulations.

The study demonstrates a satisfactory performance of GARD®skin and GARD®potency for skin sensitization hazard and GHS potency categorization of tested agrochemical formulations.

Marco Corvaro, Joseph Henriquez, Raja Settivari, Ulrika Mattson, Andy Forreryd, Robin Gradin, Henrik Johansson, Sean Gehen,
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Volume 148, 2024, 105595, ISSN 0273-2300,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105595.

Keywords

GARD™; In vitro; Skin sensitisation; NAMs; Agrochemical formulations

Highlights

  • Tested 42 agrochemical formulations to expand applicability domain of GARD.

  • GARDskin showed good accuracy (76.2%), sensitivity (85.0%) and specificity (68.2%).
  • GARDpotency correctly subcategorized 14/17, correctly predicted sensitisers.
  • GARD satisfactory for Key Event 3 characterisation of agrochemical formulations.


Abstract

Several New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) for hazard assessment of skin sensitisers have been formally validated. However, data regarding their applicability on certain product classes are limited. The purpose of this project was to provide initial evidence on the applicability domain of GARD™skin and GARD™potency for the product class of agrochemical formulations.

For this proof of concept, 30 liquid and 12 solid agrochemical formulations were tested in GARDskin for hazard predictions. Formulations predicted as sensitisers were further evaluated in the GARDpotency assay to determine GHS skin sensitisation category. The selected formulations were of product types, efficacy groups and sensitisation hazard classes representative of the industry’s products.

The performance of GARDskin was estimated by comparing results to existing in vivo animal data. The overall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 76.2% (32/42), 85.0% (17/20), and 68.2% (15/22), respectively, with the predictivity for liquid formulations being slightly higher compared to the solid formulations. GARDpotency correctly subcategorized 14 out of the 17 correctly predicted sensitisers. Lack of concordance was justifiable by compositional or borderline response analysis. In conclusion, GARDskin and GARDpotency showed satisfactory performance in this initial proof-of-concept study, which supports consideration of agrochemical formulations being within the applicability domain of the test methods.

 

New scientific publication by ExxonMobil: Challenges integrating skin sensitization data for assessment of difficult to test substances

New scientific publication by ExxonMobil.

Check out this newly published article by ExxonMobil focusing on the challenges of determining skin sensitization hazard in the case of difficult-to-test substances with conflicting or low-confidence data, where GARDskin data on UVCBs and hydrophobic substances provides valuable input for the integrated hazard assessment.

The article provides new peer-reviewed evidence for the applicability domain of GARDskin on UVCBs, hydrophobic and highly complex substances.

Greminger A, Frasca J, Goyak K, North C. 
Challenges integrating skin sensitization data for assessment of difficult to test substances. 
ALTEX - Alternatives to animal experimentation, published Oct 12, 2023
doi: 10.14573/altex.2201122. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37843019.

Keywords

LLNA; ToxPi; new approach methodologies; skin sensitization; weight of evidence.


Abstract

Difficult to test substances including poorly soluble, mildly irritating, or Unknown or Variable Composition Complex reaction products or Biological Materials (UVCBs), producing weak or borderline in vivo results, face additional challenges in in vitro assays that often necessitates data integration in a weight of evidence (WOE) approach to inform skin sensitization potential. Here we present several case studies on difficult to test substances and highlight the utility of Toxicological Prioritization Index (ToxPi) as a data visualization tool to compare skin sensitization biological activity. The case study test substances represent two poorly soluble substances, tetrakis (2-ethylbutyl) orthosilicate and decyl palmitate, and two UVCB substances, alkylated anisole and hydrazinecarboximidamide, 2-[(2-hydroxyphenyl)methylene]-, reaction products with 2 undecanone. Data from key events within the skin sensitization adverse outcome pathway were gathered from publicly available sources or specifically generated. Incorporating the data for these case study test substances as well as on chemicals of a known sensitization class (sensitizer, irritating non-sensitizer, and non-sensitizer) into ToxPi produced biological activity profiles which were grouped using unsupervised hierarchical clustering. Three of the case study test substances concluded to lack skin sensitization potential by traditional WOE produced biological activity profiles most consistent with non-sensitizing substances, whereas the prediction was less definitive for a substance considered positive by traditional WOE. Visualizing the data using bioactivity profiles can provide further support for WOE conclusions in certain circumstances but is unlikely to replace WOE as a stand-alone prediction due to limitations of the method including the impact of missing data points.

 

The GARDskin assay: Investigation of the applicability domain for metals

Joint publication with Johnson Matthey

ALTEX – Alternatives to animal experimentation, published Nov 03, 2022, accepted manuscript

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2203021

Forreryd, A., Gradin, R., Larne, O., Rajapakse, N., Deag, E. and Johansson, H.


Abstract

New approach methods (NAMs) for hazard identification of skin sensitizing chemicals have been adopted as test guidelines by the OECD during the last decade as alternatives to animal models. These models align to individual key events (KE) in the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization for which the molecular initiating event (MIE) is covalent binding to proteins. As it currently stands, the AOP does not include mechanistic events of sensitization by metals, and limited information is available on whether NAMs accurately the predict sensitization potential of such molecules, which have been proposed to act via alternative mechanisms to organic chemicals.

Methods for assessing the sensitization potential of metals would comprise valuable tools to support risk management within e.g., occupational settings during production of new metal salts or within the medical device industry to evaluate leachables from metal alloys.

This paper describes a systematic evaluation of the applicability domain of the GARD™skin assay for assessment of metals. Hazard classifications were supplemented with an extended analysis of gene expression profiles induced by metal sensitizers to compare the induction of toxicity pathways between metals and organic sensitizers. Based on the results of this study, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of GARD™skin for prediction of skin sensitizing hazard were 92% (12/13), 100% (7/7) and 83% (5/6), respectively.

Thus, the performance of GARD™skin for assessment of metals was found to be similar to what is observed on conventional organic substances, providing support for inclusion of metals within the applicability domain of the test method.

Keywords

skin sensitization, metals, regulatory testing, medical devices

Full article on line with open access

Exploration of the GARDskin applicability domain: Indirectly acting haptens, hydrophobic substances and UVCBs

Joint publication with the Lubrizol Corporation

ALTEX – Alternatives to animal experimentation, published April 21, 2022, accepted manuscript, https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2201281

Forreryd, A., Gradin, R., Humfrey, C., Sweet, L. and Johansson, H.

Abstract

Hazard assessments of skin sensitizers are increasingly being performed using new approach methodologies (NAMs), with several in chemico, in vitro and most recently also defined approaches (DAs) being accepted for regulatory use. However, keeping track of potential limitations of each method in order to define applicability domains remains a crucial component to ensure adequate predictivity as well as facilitating the appropriate selection of method(s) for each hazard assessment task. The objective of this report is to share test results generated with the GARD™skin assay on chemicals that have traditionally been considered as difficult to test in some of the conventional in vitro and in chemico OECD Test Guidelines for skin sensitization. Such compounds may include, for example, indirectly acting haptens, hydrophobic substances, and substances of unknown variable composition or biological substances (UVCBs). Based on the results of this study, the sensitivity for prediction of skin sensitizing hazard of indirectly acting haptenswas92.4%and 87.5%, when compared with LLNA(n=25)and human data(n=8), respectively. Similarly, the sensitivity for prediction of skin sensitizing hazard of hydrophobic substances was 85.1% and 100%, when compared with LLNA(n=24)and human data(n=9), respectively. Lastly, a case study involving the assessment of a set of hydrophobic UVCBs(n=7) resulted in a sensitivity of 100, as compared to available reference data. Thus, it was concluded that these data provide support for the inclusion of such chemistries in the GARD™skin applicability domain, without an increased risk of false negative classifications.

Key words: GARD, GARDskin, skin sensitization, applicability domain, difficult to test substances, Indirectly acting haptens, hydrophobic substances, UVCBs

 

Full article
Article on line with open access

Tag Archive for: applicability domain

Webinar: In vitro skin sensitization testing: Ensuring conclusive results for challenging samples

Join us for a special re-run of our popular GARD® webinar to explore the recent advancement in Skin Sensitization testing, focusing on substances that fall outside the applicability domains of the conventional in vitro assays in the OECD Test Guidelines.

Our skin sensitization experts will address challenges posed by various “Difficult-to-Test” substances, discussing the applicability domain of key event-based NAMs and existing test strategies.

You will learn about the broad applicability of GARD®skin (OECD TG442E) as we review scientific data on challenging substances and exciting projects done in collaboration with industry partners:

Agrochemical Formulations | Formulated Lubricant Products | Indirectly Acting Haptens | Metals | Natural Extracts | Polymers | UVCBs

Recorded webinar with live Q&A

This recorded webinar will last approximately 45 minutes, followed by a live Q&A. If you cannot attend the live event, make sure to register to get access to the recording.

Key takeaways

  • NAMs and test strategies for skin sensitization testing of challenging samples.
  • The applicability domain of GARD®skin for challenging substances and its integration into Defined Approaches.
  • Case studies on Agrochemical Formulations, Formulated Lubricant Products, Indirectly Acting Haptens, Metals, Natural Extracts, Polymers, and UVCBs.


What are challenging /“difficult-to-test” substances?

In the context of skin sensitization testing, certain groups of chemicals are considered difficult to test using conventional cell-based methods. Examples of commonly recognised “difficult-to-test” samples include indirectly acting haptens, complex mixtures, and substances with low water solubility.

Read more about difficult-to-test substances.

Speaker