Accounting for data variability, a key factor in in vivo/in vitro relationships: application to the skin sensitization potency (in vivo LLNA versus in vitro DPRA) example.

When searching for alternative methods to animal testing, confidently rescaling an in vitro result to the corresponding in vivo classification is still a challenging problem. Although one of the most important factors affecting good correlation is sample characteristics, they are very rarely integrated into correlation studies. Usually, in these studies, it is implicitly assumed that both compared values are error-free numbers, which they are not. In this work, we propose a general methodology to analyze and integrate data variability and thus confidence estimation when rescaling from one test to another. The methodology is demonstrated through the case study of rescaling the in vitro Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) reactivity to the in vivo Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) skin sensitization potency classifications. In a first step, a comprehensive statistical analysis evaluating the reliability and variability of LLNA and DPRA as such was done. These results allowed us to link the concept of gray zones and confidence probability, which in turn represents a new perspective for a more precise knowledge of the classification of chemicals within their in vivo OR in vitro test. Next, the novelty and practical value of our methodology introducing variability into the threshold optimization between the in vitro AND in vivo test resides in the fact that it attributes a confidence probability to the predicted classification. The methodology, classification and screening approach presented in this study are not restricted to skin sensitization only. They could be helpful also for fate, toxicity and health hazard assessment where plenty of in vitro and in chemico assays and/or QSARs models are available. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Prospective multicentre study of the U-SENS test method for skin sensitization testing.

The U-SENS™ is a test method based on the human myeloid U937 cell line to assess the skin sensitisation potential of substances. To demonstrate its robustness, a multicentre validation study with four laboratories testing 24 coded substances has been conducted according to internationally agreed principles. The primary objective of the study was to enlarge the U-SENS™'s reproducibility database. Secondary objectives were to provide additional evidence on its transferability and its predictive capability. Reproducibility within laboratories was approximately 92%, while the reproducibility between laboratories was 87.5%. Predictivity for the 24 validation substances was high, with sensitivity, specificity and accuracy being on average at least 93.8%. Similar performances are obtained for 38 substances when combining the study results with those of an earlier multicentre study, as well as with an automated version of the U-SENS™. With reliability and relevance similar to comparable non-animal skin sensitisation test methods, which have achieved regulatory acceptance, it is concluded that the U-SENS™ is a well reproducible and predictive test method. This profiles the U-SENS™ as a valuable addition to the suite of non-animal testing methods for skin sensitisation with the potential to significantly contribute to the development of integrated testing strategies.