Development of a next generation risk assessment framework for the evaluation of skin sensitisation of cosmetic ingredients.

All cosmetic products placed onto the market must undergo a risk assessment for human health to ensure they are safe for consumers, including an assessment of skin sensitisation risk. Historically, in vivo animal test methods were used to identify and characterise skin sensitisation hazard, however non-animal and other new approach methodologies (NAMs) are now the preferred and mandated choice for use in risk assessment for cosmetic ingredients. The experience gained over the last three decades on how to conduct risk assessments based upon NAMs has allowed us to develop a non-animal, next generation risk assessment (NGRA) framework for the assessment of skin sensitisers. The framework presented here is based upon the principles published by the International Cooperation on Cosmetic Regulation (ICCR) and is human relevant, exposure led, hypothesis driven and designed to prevent harm. It is structured in three tiers and integrates all relevant information using a weight of evidence (WoE) approach that can be iterated when new information becomes available. The initial tier (TIER 0) involves a thorough review of the existing information including; identification of the use scenario/consumer exposure; characterisation of the chemical purity and structure; in silico predictions; existing data pertaining to skin sensitisation hazard (historical or non-animal); the identification of suitable read-across candidates with supporting hazard identification/characterisation information and application of exposure-based waiving. Considering all information identified in TIER 0, the next step is the generation of a hypothesis (TIER 1). All data are considered in an exposure-led WoE approach, taking into account an initial view on whether a chemical is likely to be a skin sensitiser or not, choice of defined approach (DA) and availability of read-across candidates. If existing information is insufficient for concluding the risk assessment, the generation of additional information may be required to proceed (TIER 2). Such targeted testing could involve refinement of the exposure estimation or generation of data from in vitro or in chemico NAMs. Once sufficient information is available, the final stage of the NGRA framework is the determination of a point of departure (POD), characterising uncertainty and comparing to the consumer exposure in a WoE. Thorough evaluation of the sources of uncertainty is essential to ensure transparency and build trust in new risk assessment approaches. Although significant progress has been made, industry must continue to share its experience in skin sensitisation NGRA via case studies to demonstrate that this new risk assessment approach is protective for consumers. Dialogue and collaboration between key stakeholders, i.e. risk assessors, clinicians and regulators are important to gain mutual understanding and grow confidence in new approaches.

The THP-1 cell toolbox: a new concept integrating the key events of skin sensitization.

According to the current scientific consensus, one in vitro test is insufficient to cover the key events (KE) defined by the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization. To address this issue we combined different end points in the same cell line to cover all KEs defined by the skin sensitization AOP. Since dendritic cells (DC) play a key role in the sensitization phase leading to the development of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), we used THP-1 cells as a surrogate for DC. We measured ROS production and GSH depletion for KE1 (binding to proteins), Nrf2 activation pathway and gene expressions for KE2 (keratinocyte response), phenotype modifications using cell-surface markers and cytokine production for KE3 (DC activation), and T-cell proliferation for KE4 (T-cell activation). These measurements were performed using the THP-1 cell line and an original THP-1/T-cell co-culture system following exposure to a variety of chemicals, including irritant, non-sensitizers, and chemicals sensitizers (pro/prehaptens). Results showed that treatment with sensitizers such as cinnamaldehyde (100 µM) or methylisothiazolinone (150 µM) was able to trigger the three main key events (KE1, KE2, and KE3) of the sensitization phase of ACD in THP-1 cells. In addition, all sensitizers were able to induce T lymphocyte proliferation (KE4), while non-sensitizers and irritants did not. Our study shows for the first time that addressing the four main KE of skin sensitization AOP in a single cell line is an achievable task.

Non-animal methods to predict skin sensitization (II): an assessment of defined approaches *.

Skin sensitization is a toxicity endpoint of widespread concern, for which the mechanistic understanding and concurrent necessity for non-animal testing approaches have evolved to a critical juncture, with many available options for predicting sensitization without using animals. Cosmetics Europe and the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods collaborated to analyze the performance of multiple non-animal data integration approaches for the skin sensitization safety assessment of cosmetics ingredients. The Cosmetics Europe Skin Tolerance Task Force (STTF) collected and generated data on 128 substances in multiple in vitro and in chemico skin sensitization assays selected based on a systematic assessment by the STTF. These assays, together with certain in silico predictions, are key components of various non-animal testing strategies that have been submitted to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development as case studies for skin sensitization. Curated murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and human skin sensitization data were used to evaluate the performance of six defined approaches, comprising eight non-animal testing strategies, for both hazard and potency characterization. Defined approaches examined included consensus methods, artificial neural networks, support vector machine models, Bayesian networks, and decision trees, most of which were reproduced using open source software tools. Multiple non-animal testing strategies incorporating in vitro, in chemico, and in silico inputs demonstrated equivalent or superior performance to the LLNA when compared to both animal and human data for skin sensitization.

Non-animal methods to predict skin sensitization (I): the Cosmetics Europe database.

Cosmetics Europe, the European Trade Association for the cosmetics and personal care industry, is conducting a multi-phase program to develop regulatory accepted, animal-free testing strategies enabling the cosmetics industry to conduct safety assessments. Based on a systematic evaluation of test methods for skin sensitization, five non-animal test methods (DPRA (Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay), KeratinoSensTM, h-CLAT (human cell line activation test), U-SENSTM, SENS-IS) were selected for inclusion in a comprehensive database of 128 substances. Existing data were compiled and completed with newly generated data, the latter amounting to one-third of all data. The database was complemented with human and local lymph node assay (LLNA) reference data, physicochemical properties and use categories, and thoroughly curated. Focused on the availability of human data, the substance selection resulted nevertheless resulted in a high diversity of chemistries in terms of physico-chemical property ranges and use categories. Predictivities of skin sensitization potential and potency, where applicable, were calculated for the LLNA as compared to human data and for the individual test methods compared to both human and LLNA reference data. In addition, various aspects of applicability of the test methods were analyzed. Due to its high level of curation, comprehensiveness, and completeness, we propose our database as a point of reference for the evaluation and development of testing strategies, as done for example in the associated work of Kleinstreuer et al. We encourage the community to use it to meet the challenge of conducting skin sensitization safety assessment without generating new animal data.

Editor's Highlight: Fragrance Allergens Linalool and Limonene Allylic Hydroperoxides in Skin Allergy: Mechanisms of Action Focusing on Transcription Factor Nrf2.

Allergic contact dermatitis is regarded as the most frequent expression of immunotoxicity in humans. Many odorant terpenes commonly used in fragrance compositions are considered as weak skin sensitizers, whereas some of their autoxidation products, allylic hydroperoxides, are classified as strong sensitizers according to the local lymph node assay. However, the mechanism of their effects on the immune system remains unclear. Since dendritic cells play a key role in allergic contact dermatitis, we studied their activation by the frequently used linalool (LINA) and limonene (LIMO), and their respective sensitizing allylic hydroperoxides (LINA-OOH, LIMO-OOH). The THP-1 cell-line was used as a surrogate for dendritic cells, the model currently employed in the validated h-CLAT in vitro test. Our data showed that allylic hydroperoxides behave differently. Both LINA-OOH and LIMO-OOH oxidized cell surface thiols 30 min after stimulation. However, the oxidative stress induced by LINA-OOH was stronger, with a higher decreased GSH/GSSG ratio and a stronger reactive species production. Moreover, LINA-OOH induced a stronger Nrf2 accumulation in correlation with nqo1 and ho-1 gene expression, 2 Nrf2 target genes. Regarding signaling pathways involved in these effects, P38 mitogen-activated protein kinase and P-ERK were activated in response to LINA-OOH but not with LIMO-OOH. CD54 and CD86 were induced 24-h postexposure. In contrast, LINA and LIMO did not modify THP-1 phenotype. This work underlies that autoxidation forming allylic hydroperoxide (ROOH) does not lead to equal chemical reactivity since LINA-OOH appears to be a stronger activator than LIMO-OOH, in regard to oxidative stress and Nrf2 pathway activation.

Comparison and validation of an in vitro skin sensitization strategy using a data set of 33 chemical references.

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an adverse health effect that develops following repeated exposure to skin sensitizing chemicals. An animal testing ban has been applied in EU, leading to development of reliably predictive non-animal methods. Several in vitro methods have been developed as alternatives but one single non-animal test method is not been sufficient to fully address since the LLNA test ban. Here, we have selected an ITS (Integrated Testing Strategy) for skin sensitization which focuses on three in vitro methods that covered the first three steps of the AOP (DPRA, SENS-IS or h-CLAT). The aim of this study was to compare these three methods due to the WoE approach based on a 2-out-of-3-assessment. The results of 33 references were compared to in vivo data (especially human). We have shown that tested firstly DPRA and SENS-IS have permitted to conclude on 29 of 33 chemicals, whereas DPRA and h-CLAT on 25, and SENS-IS and h-CLAT on 23. With this sequence, DPRA and SENS-IS and then h-CLAT in case of equivocal results, we conclude more quickly by performing fewer tests. Thereby, we have shown that it is better to follow a preferential sequence than testing chemicals simultaneously with these three methods.