Assessment of commercial polymers with and without reactive groups using amino acid derivative reactivity assay based on both molar concentration approach and gravimetric approach.

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA), an alternative method for testing skin sensitization, has been established based on the molar concentration approach. However, the additional development of gravimetric concentration and fluorescence detection methods has expanded its range of application to mixtures, which cannot be evaluated using the conventional testing method, the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA). Although polymers are generally treated as mixtures, there have been no reports of actual polymer evaluations using alternative methods owing to their insolubility. Therefore, in this study, we evaluated skin sensitization potential of polymers, which is difficult to predict, using ADRA. As polymers have molecular weights ranging from several thousand to more than several tens of thousand Daltons, they are unlikely to cause skin sensitization due to their extremely low penetration into the skin, according to the 500-Da rule. However, if highly reactive functional groups remain at the ends or side chains of polymers, relatively low-molecular-weight polymer components may penetrate the skin to cause sensitization. Polymers can be roughly classified into three major types based on the features of their constituent monomers; we investigated the sensitization capacity of each type of polymer. Polymers with alert sensitization structures at their ends were classified as skin sensitizers, whereas those with no residual reactive groups were classified as nonsensitizers. Although polymers with a glycidyl group need to be evaluated carefully, we concluded that ADRA (0.5 mg/ml) is generally sufficient for polymer hazard assessment.

Within- and between-laboratory reproducibility and predictive capacity of amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) using a 0.5 mg/mL test chemical solution: Results of the study for reproducibility confirmation implemented in five participating laboratories.

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) is an in chemico alternative assay for skin sensitization listed in OECD test guideline 442C. ADRA evaluates the reactivity of sensitizers to proteins, which is key event 1 in the skin sensitization adverse outcome pathway. Although the current key event 1 evaluation method is a simple assay that evaluates nucleophile and test chemical reactivity, mixtures of unknown molecular weights cannot be evaluated because a constant molar ratio between the nucleophile and test chemical is necessary. In addition, because the nucleophile is quantified by HPLC, the frequency of co-eluting the test chemical and nucleophile increases when measuring multi-component mixtures. To solve these issues, test conditions have been developed using a 0.5 mg/mL test chemical solution and fluorescence-based detection. Since the practicality of these methods has not been substantiated, a validation test to confirm reproducibility was conducted in this study. The 10 proficiency substances listed in the ADRA guidelines were tested three times at five different laboratories. The results of both within- and between-laboratory reproducibility were 100%, and the results of ultraviolet- and fluorescence-based measurements were also consistent. In addition to the proficiency substances, a new positive control, squaric acid diethyl ester, was tested three times at the five laboratories. The results showed high reproducibility with N-(2-(1-naphthyl)acetyl)-l-cysteine depletion of 37%-52% and α-N-(2-(1-naphthyl)acetyl)-l-lysine depletion of 99%-100%. Thus, high reproducibility was confirmed in both evaluations of the 0.5 mg/mL test chemical and the fluorescence-based measurements, validating the practicability of these methods.

Applicability of amino acid derivative reactivity assay (4 mM) for the prediction of skin sensitization by combining multiple alternative methods to evaluate key events.

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) is an alternative method for evaluating key event 1 (KE-1) in the skin sensitization mechanism included in OECD TG442C (OECD, 2021). Recently, we found that ADRA with a 4-mM test chemical solution had a higher accuracy than the original ADRA (1 mM). However, ADRA (4 mM) has yet to be evaluated using integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA), a combination of alternative methods for evaluating KE. In this study, the sensitization potency of three defined approaches (DAs) using ADRA (4 mM) as KE-1 was predicted and compared with those of two additional ADRAs or direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA): (i) "2 out of 3" approach, (ii) "3 out of 3" approach, and (iii) integrated testing strategy (ITS). In the hazard identification of chemical sensitizers, the accuracy of human data and local lymph node assay (LLNA) remained almost unchanged among the three approaches evaluated. Potency classifications for sensitization were predicted with the LLNA and human data sets using ITS. The potency classifications for the sensitization potency prediction accuracy of LLNA data using any alternative method were almost unchanged, at approximately 70%, and those with ITS were not significantly different. When ITS was performed using DPRA, the prediction accuracy was approximately 73% for human data, which was similar to that of the LLNA data; however, the accuracy tended to increase for all ADRA methods. In particular, when ITS was performed using ADRA (4 mM), the prediction accuracy was approximately 78%, which proved to be a practical level.

The within- and between-laboratories reproducibility and predictive capacity of Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay using 4 mM test chemical solution: Results of ring study implemented at five participating laboratories.

Amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) for skin sensitization was adopted as an alternative method in the 2019 OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals (OECD TG 442C). The molar ratio of the nucleophilic reagent to the test chemicals in the reaction solution was set to 1:50. Imamura et al. reported that changing this molar ratio from 1:50 to 1:200 reduced in false negatives and improved prediction accuracy. Hence, a ring study using ADRA with 4 mM of a test chemical solution (ADRA, 4 mM) was conducted at five different laboratories to verify within- and between-laboratory reproducibilities (WLR and BLR, respectively). In this study, we investigated the WLR and BLR using 14 test chemicals grouped into three classes: (1) eight proficiency substances, (2) four test chemicals that showed false negatives in the ADRA with 1 mM test chemical solution (ADRA, 1 mM), but correctly positive in ADRA (4 mM), and (3) current positive control (phenylacetaldehyde) and a new additional positive control (squaric acid diethyl ester). The results showed 100% reproducibility and 100% accuracy for skin sensitization. Hence, it is clear that the ADRA (4 mM) is an excellent test method in contrast to the currently used ADRA (1 mM). We plan to resubmit the ADRA (4 mM) test method to the OECD Test Guideline Group in the near future so that OECD TG 442C could be revised for the convenience and benefit of many ADRA users.

Amino acid derivative reactivity assay-organic solvent reaction system: A novel alternative test for skin sensitization capable of assessing highly hydrophobic substances.

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) is an in chemico alternative to animal testing that focuses on protein binding. The ADRA is a skin sensitization test that solves problems associated with the direct peptide reactivity assay. However, when utilizing the ADRA to evaluate highly hydrophobic substances with octanol/water partition coefficients (logKow) of >6, the test substances may not dissolve in the reaction solution, which can prevent the accurate assessment of skin sensitization. Therefore, we developed the ADRA-organic solvent (ADRA-OS) reaction system, which is a novel skin sensitization test that enables the assessment of highly hydrophobic substances with a logKow of >6. We discovered that the organic solvent ratio, the triethylamine concentration, and the ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dihydrate concentration participate in reactions with the nucleophile N-(2-(1-naphthyl)acetyl)-l-cysteine (NAC) and sensitizers that are used in ADRA and in stabilizing NAC. Thus, we determined the optimal reaction composition of the ADRA-OS according to L9 (33 ) orthogonal array experiments. Using this test, we assessed 14 types of highly hydrophobic substances. When we compared the results with ADRA, we found that ADRA-OS reaction system has high solubility for highly hydrophobic substances and that it has a high predictive capacity (sensitivity: 63%, specificity: 100%, accuracy: 79%). The implication of the results is that the novel ADRA-OS reaction system should provide a useful method for assessing the skin sensitization of highly hydrophobic substances with a logKow of >6.

Improving predictive capacity of the Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay test method for skin sensitization potential with an optimal molar concentration of test chemical solution.

The Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay (ADRA) is a convenient and effective in chemico test method for assessing covalent binding of test chemicals with protein-derived nucleophilic reagents as a means of predicting skin sensitization potential. Although the original molar-concentration approach to ADRA testing was not suitable for testing multiconstituent substances of an unknown composition, a weight-concentration approach that is suitable for such substances was developed, which also led to the realization that test chemical solutions prepared to molar concentrations higher than the original 1 mM would reduce false negative results as well as enhance predictive capacity. The present study determined an optimal molar-concentration that achieves even higher predictive capacity than the original ADRA. Eight chemicals that were false negatives when tested with 1 mM test chemical solutions were retested with test chemical solutions between 2 and 5 mM, which showed 4 mM to be the optimal molar-concentration for ADRA testing. When 82 chemicals used in the original development were retested with 4 mM test chemical solutions, false negative results were reduced by four. When an additional 85 chemicals used to evaluate the weight-concentration approach to ADRA were retested, the results essentially replicated those obtained with 0.5 mg/ml test chemical solutions and gave 10 fewer false negatives than original ADRA with 1 mM solutions. A comparison of these results for 136 chemicals showed that ADRA testing with 4 mM solutions achieved a four percentage point improvement in accuracy over original ADRA and a two percentage point improvement over DPRA testing.

Oxidation of a cysteine-derived nucleophilic reagent by dimethyl sulfoxide in the amino acid derivative reactivity assay.

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA), which is an in chemico alternative to the use of animals in testing for skin sensitization potential, offers significant advantages over the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) in that it utilizes nucleophilic reagents that are sensitive enough to be used with test chemical solutions prepared to concentrations of 1 mm, which is one-hundredth that of DPRA. ADRA testing of hydrophobic or other poorly soluble compounds requires that they be dissolved in a solvent consisting of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and acetonitrile. DMSO is known to promote dimerization by oxidizing thiols, which then form disulfide bonds. We investigated the extent to which DMSO oxidizes the cysteine-derived nucleophilic reagents used in both DPRA and ADRA and found that oxidation of both N-(2-(1-naphthyl)acetyl)-l-cysteine (NAC) and cysteine peptide increases as the concentration of DMSO increases, thereby lowering the concentration of the nucleophilic reagent. We also found that use of a solvent consisting of 5% DMSO in acetonitrile consistently lowered NAC concentrations by about 0.4 µm relative to the use of solvents containing no DMSO. We also tested nine sensitizers and four nonsensitizers having different sensitization potencies to compare NAC depletion with and without 5% DMSO and found that reactivity was about the same with either solvent. Based on the above, we conclude that the use of a solvent containing 5% DMSO has no effect on the accuracy of ADRA test results. We plan to review and propose revisions to OECD Test Guideline 442C based on the above investigation.

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay with fluorescence detection and its application to multi-constituent substances.

The Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay (ADRA) is an in chemico alternative to animal testing for the prediction of skin sensitization potential. Although co-elution of test chemicals and nucleophilic reagents during HPLC analysis is sometimes problematic when using the Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA), it rarely occurs when using ADRA. Nevertheless, the application of either of these tests to multi-constituent substances requires nucleophilic reagents capable of selective detection. With this issue in mind, the authors developed an ADRA fluorescence detection method (ADRA-FL), which utilizes the natural fluorescence of ADRA nucleophilic reagents. In this study, we demonstrate the efficacy of ADRA-FL by testing 82 test chemicals used in the development of both DPRA and the conventional ADRA (ADRA-UV) as well as establish a threshold value for distinguishing sensitizers and non-sensitizers. Our results show that not only are depletion values obtained using ADRA-FL virtually identical to those obtained using ADRA-UV, the threshold value for either test is 4.9%. Additionally, in order to demonstrate the applicability of ADRA-FL to multi-constituent substances, we prepared test samples that consisted of a set of 10 non-sensitizers combined with one of 10 different sensitizers and tested each using ADRA-FL. The test results were concordant with those obtained using ADRA-UV. Also, because ADRA-FL chromatograms showed a significant decrease in multiple peaks as well as extremely stable baselines, we conclude that ADRA-FL is a highly selective and highly accurate mans of quantifying nucleophilic reagents that is applicable to a wide variety of chemical substances.

Applicability of amino acid derivative reactivity assay for prediction of skin sensitization by combining multiple alternative methods to evaluate key events.

Amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) has previously been developed as an alternative method to direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) to evaluate key event 1 in skin sensitization mechanisms. However, when using alternative methods for skin sensitization, integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA) that combine the results of multiple tests evaluating different key events are generally required. To verify whether ADRA can be used in IATA, we replaced DPRA with ADRA in five IATA methods combining DPRA, KeratinoSens, and h-CLAT: (i) the "2 out of 3" approach, (ii) the "3 out of 3" approach, (iii) sequential testing strategy (STS), (iv) integrated testing strategy by scoring approach (ITS-SA), and (v) the "ITS by two methods approach" (ITS-2MA). The prediction accuracy of the "2 out of 3" approach using ADRA (1 mM) and ADRA (0.5 mg/mL) was 90.0% and 91.1%, respectively, for human data, and was very similar to that obtained using DPRA (91.1%). The "3 out of 3" approach also showed good predictability (83.2%) using either ADRA (1 mM) or ADRA (0.5 mg/mL) compared to DPRA. Regarding the accuracy of the prediction of sensitization intensity for the human data by the third classification, prediction accuracy using ADRA was almost the same as STS, ITS-SA, or ITS-2MA using DPRA. As a result, this study showed that ADRA can be used as a test method for key event 1 in the evaluation of skin sensitization by combining multiple alternative methods.

The within- and between-laboratory reproducibility and predictive capacity of the in chemico amino acid derivative reactivity assay: Results of validation study implemented in four participating laboratories.

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) is an in chemico alternative method that focuses on protein binding as the molecular initiating event for skin sensitization. It is a simple and versatile method that has successfully solved some of the problems of the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA). The transferability and within- and between-laboratory reproducibility of ADRA were evaluated and confirmed as part of a validation study conducted at four participating laboratories. The transfer of ADRA technology from the lead laboratory to the four participating laboratories was completed successfully during a two-step training program, after which the skin sensitization potentials of 40 coded chemicals were predicted based on the results of ADRA testing. Within-laboratories reproducibility was 100% (10 of 10), 100% (10 of 10), 100% (7 of 7) and 90% (9 of 10), or an average of 97.3% (36 of 37); between-laboratory reproducibility as calculated on the results of three laboratories at the time was 91.9%. The overall predictive capacity comprised an accuracy of 86.9%, sensitivity of 81.5% and specificity of 98.1%. These results satisfied the targets set by the validation management team for demonstrating transferability, within- and between-laboratory reproducibility, and predictive capacity as well as gave a clear indication that ADRA is easily transferable and sufficiently robust to be used in place of DPRA.

Cause of and countermeasures for oxidation of the cysteine-derived reagent used in the amino acid derivative reactivity assay.

The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) is an in chemico alternative to animal testing for skin sensitization that solves certain problems found in the use of the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA). During a recent validation study conducted at multiple laboratories as part of the process to include ADRA in an existing OECD test guideline, one of the nucleophilic reagents used in ADRA-N-(2-(1-naphthyl)acetyl)-l-cysteine (NAC)-was found to be susceptible to oxidation in much the same manner that the cysteine peptide used in DPRA was. Owing to this, we undertook a study to clarify the cause of the promotion of NAC oxidation. In general, cysteine and other chemicals that have thiol groups are known to oxidize in the presence of even minute quantities of metal ions. When metal ions were added to the ADRA reaction solution, Cu2+ promoted NAC oxidation significantly. When 0.25 µm of EDTA was added in the presence of Cu2+ , NAC oxidation was suppressed. Based on this, we predicted that the addition of EDTA to the NAC stock solution would suppress NAC oxidation. Next, we tested 82 chemicals used in developing ADRA to determine whether EDTA affects ADRA's ability to predict sensitization. The results showed that the addition of EDTA has virtually no effect on the reactivity of NAC with a test chemical, yielding an accuracy of 87% for predictions of skin sensitization, which was roughly the same as ADRA.

A novel in chemico method to detect skin sensitizers in highly diluted reaction conditions.

The direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) is a simple and versatile alternative method for the evaluation of skin sensitization that involves the reaction of test chemicals with two peptides. However, this method requires concentrated solutions of test chemicals, and hydrophobic substances may not dissolve at the concentrations required. Furthermore, hydrophobic test chemicals may precipitate when added to the reaction solution. We previously established a high-sensitivity method, the amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA). This method uses novel cysteine (NAC) and novel lysine derivatives (NAL), which were synthesized by introducing a naphthalene ring to the amine group of cysteine and lysine residues. In this study, we modified the ADRA method by reducing the concentration of the test chemicals 100-fold. We investigated the accuracy of skin sensitization predictions made using the modified method, which was designated the ADRA-dilutional method (ADRA-DM). The predictive accuracy of the ADRA-DM for skin sensitization was 90% for 82 test chemicals which were also evaluated via the ADRA, and the predictive accuracy in the ADRA-DM was higher than that in the ADRA and DPRA. Furthermore, no precipitation of test compounds was observed at the initiation of the ADRA-DM reaction. These results show that the ADRA-DM allowed the use of test chemicals at concentrations two orders of magnitude lower than that possible with the ADRA. In addition, ADRA-DM does not have the restrictions on test compound solubility that were a major problem with the DPRA. Therefore, the ADRA-DM is a versatile and useful method.

Development of a prediction method for skin sensitization using novel cysteine and lysine derivatives.

INTRODUCTION: The Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) was developed as an alternative simple and versatile method for predicting skin sensitization. Here, we describe a novel Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay (ADRA) involving 2 amino acid derivatives: N-(2-(1-naphthyl)acetyl)-l-cysteine (NAC) and α-N-(2-(1-naphthyl)acetyl)-l-lysine (NAL), in which each amino-terminal residue is introduced into a naphthalene ring. ADRA measurements were conducted at 281nm, which improved baseline stability, and were less influenced by other substances in the reaction solutions than DPRA measurements that are conducted at 220nm. METHODS: Chemically synthesized NAC and NAL were dissolved in phosphate buffers of pH9.5 and 12.0, respectively. Each solution, test chemical solution, and phosphate buffer, were mixed in 96-well microplates and incubated in the dark for 24h at 25°C. Following incubation, samples were diluted 10 times with a mixed solution of 25% acetonitrile/0.5% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) in water, and NAC and NAL levels were quantified in each sample and control using a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) system. The reactivity of NAC/NAL was calculated as the percent depletion based on the decrease in the non-reacted NAC/NAL concentration in the samples relative to the average concentration in the control; the average NAC/NAL reduction score was calculated. A 2-class classification model was developed using ADMEWORKS/ModelBuilder, and an optimal average score that could discriminate between sensitizers and non-sensitizers was determined. RESULTS: A total of 82 test chemicals were applied to ADRA for comparison against DPRA. The prediction accuracy of ADRA was 88%, which was similar to that of DPRA. DISCUSSION: ADRA was used to quantify NAC/NAL at 281nm, which showed high accuracy for the prediction of skin sensitization, similar to that of DPRA. Therefore, ADRA could be used to expand the range of chemicals tested in skin sensitization analyses.