Critical assessment of the endocrine potential of Linalool and Linalyl acetate: proactive testing strategy assessing estrogenic and androgenic activity of Lavender oil main components.

The acyclic linear monoterpenes Linalool (Lin) and Linalyl acetate (LinAc) occur in nature as major constituents of various essential oils such as lavender oils. A potential endocrine activity of these compounds was discussed in literature including premature thelarche and prepubertal gynecomastia due to lavender product use. This study aims to follow-up on these critical findings reported by testing Lin and LinAc in several studies in line with current guidance and regulatory framework. No relevant anti-/ER and AR-mediated activity was observed in recombinant yeast cell-based screening tests and guideline reporter gene in vitro assays in mammalian cells. Findings in the screening test suggested an anti-androgenic activity, which could not be confirmed in the respective mammalian cell guideline assay. Mechanistic guideline in vivo studies (Uterotrophic and Hershberger assays) with Lin did not show significant dose related changes in estrogen or androgen sensitive organ weights and a guideline reproductive toxicity screening study did not reveal evident effects on sex steroid hormone sensitive organ weights, associated histopathological findings and altered sperm parameters. Estrous cycling and mating/fertility indices were not affected and no evident Lin-related steroid hormone dependent effects were found in the offspring. Overall, the initial concerns from literature were not confirmed. Findings in the yeast screening test were aberrant from follow-up guideline in vitro and in vivo studies, which underlines the need to apply careful interpretation of single in vitro test results to support a respective line of evidence and to establish a biologically plausible link to an adverse outcome.

Plant extracts, polymers and new approach methods: Practical experience with skin sensitization assessment.

Over the last decade, research into methodologies to identify skin sensitization hazards has led to the adoption of several non-animal methods as OECD test guidelines. However, predictive accuracy beyond the chemical domains of the individual validation studies remains largely untested. In the present study, skin sensitization test results from in vitro and in chemico methods for 12 plant extracts and 15 polymeric materials are reported and compared to available in vivo skin sensitization data. Eight plant extracts were tested in the DPRA and h-CLAT, with the 2 out of 3 approach resulting in a balanced accuracy of 50%. The balanced accuracy for the 11 plant extracts assessed in the SENS-IS was 88%. Excluding 5 polymers inconclusive in vitro, the remainder, assessed using the 2 out of 3 approach, resulted in 63% balanced accuracy. The SENS-IS method, excluding one polymeric material due to technical inapplicability, showed 68% balanced accuracy. Although based on limited numbers, the results presented here indicate that some substance subgroups may not be in the applicability domains of the method used and careful analysis is required before positive or negative results can be accepted.

Accounting for Precision Uncertainty of Toxicity Testing: Methods to Define Borderline Ranges and Implications for Hazard Assessment of Chemicals.

For hazard classifications of chemicals, continuous data from animal- or nonanimal testing methods are often dichotomized into binary positive/negative outcomes by defining classification thresholds (CT). Experimental data are, however, subject to biological and technical variability. Each test method's precision is limited resulting in uncertainty of the positive/negative outcome if the experimental result is close to the CT. Borderline ranges (BR) around the CT were suggested, which represent ranges in which the study result is ambiguous, that is, positive or negative results are equally likely. The BR reflects a method's precision uncertainty. This article explores and compares different approaches to quantify the BR. Besides using the pooled standard deviation, we determine the BR by means of the median absolute deviation (MAD), with a sequential combination of both methods, and by using nonparametric bootstrapping. Furthermore, we quantify the BR for different hazardous effects, including nonanimal tests for skin corrosion, eye irritation, skin irritation, and skin sensitization as well as for an animal test on skin sensitization (the local lymph node assay, LLNA). Additionally, for one method (direct peptide reactivity assay) the BR was determined experimentally and compared to calculated BRs. Our results demonstrate that (i) the precision of the methods is determining the size of their BRs, (ii) there is no "perfect" method to derive a BR, alas, (iii) a consensus on BR is needed to account for the limited precision of testing methods.

Predictivity of the kinetic direct peptide reactivity assay (kDPRA) for sensitizer potency assessment and GHS subclassification

Several in vitro OECD test guidelines address key events 1-3 of the adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization, but none are validated for sensitizer potency assessment. The reaction of sensitizing molecules with skin proteins is the molecular initiating event and appears to be rate-limiting, as chemical reactivity strongly correlates with sensitizer potency. The kinetic direct peptide reactivity assay (kDPRA), a modification of the DPRA (OECD TG 442C), allows derivation of rate constants of the depletion of the cysteine-containing model peptide upon reaction with the test item. Its reproducibility was demonstrated in an inter-laboratory study. Here, we present a database of rate constants, expressed as log kmax, for 180 chemicals to define the prediction threshold to identify strong sensitizers (classified as GHS 1A). A threshold of log kmax -2 offers a balanced accuracy of 85% for predicting GHS 1A sensitizers according to the local lymph node assay. The kDPRA is proposed as a stand-alone assay for identification of GHS 1A sensitizers among chemicals identified as sensitizers by other tests or defined approaches. It may also be used for the prediction of sensitizer potency on a continuous scale, ideally in combination with continuous parameters from other in vitro assays. We show how the rate constant could be combined with read-outs of other in vitro assays in a defined approach. A decision model based on log kmax alone has, however, a high predictivity and can be used as stand-alone model for identification of GHS 1A sensitizers among chemicals predicted as sensitizers.

Replacing the refinement for skin sensitization testing: Considerations to the implementation of adverse outcome pathway (AOP)-based defined approaches (DA) in OECD guidelines.

While single non-animal methods have been adopted in OECD test guidelines, combinations of methods (so called defined approaches, DA) are not. Hardly any animal study can be replaced by a single non-animal method, rather DA are needed. The OECD published the Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) on skin sensitization in 2012 and is currently discussing the implementation of DA into a guideline. Obviously, it takes thorough considerations and evaluations to validate such DA. Currently we see four preconditions for a proper and expedient implementation of DA in a guideline: (i) The reference data should be selected to allow meaningful evaluations and must not replicate the limitations of the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) (ii) Methods and prediction models should be validated before they are used in an OECD-adopted DA, (iii) An OECD-adopted DA should follow the respective AOP and (iv) acknowledge regulatory needs and successful toxicological practice. These points still need to be considered in the current discussion at the OECD. A guideline for skin sensitization DA is setting the scene for regulatory acceptance of all new approaches (for any toxicological endpoint) in the future. In this commentary, we are expounding these preconditions to allow a scientifically valid and sustainable application of modern (no-animal) approaches in regulatory toxicology.

In-house validation of the EpiOcular(TM) eye irritation test and its combination with the bovine corneal opacity and permeability test for the assessment of ocular irritation.

In 2009, the Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) test was accepted by the regulatory bodies for the identification of corrosive and severe ocular irritants (Global Harmonised System [GHS] Category 1). However, no in vitro test is currently accepted for the differentiation of ocular irritants (GHS Category 2) and non-irritants (GHS No Category). Human reconstructed tissue models have been suggested for incorporation into a tiered testing strategy to ultimately replace the Draize rabbit eye irritation test (OECD TG 405). The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the EpiOcular(TM) reconstructed cornea-like tissue model and the COLIPA pre-validated EpiOcular Eye Irritation Test (EpiOcular-EIT) could be used as suitable components of this testing strategy. The in-house validation of the EpiOcular-EIT was performed by using 60 test substances, including a broad variety of chemicals and formulations for which in vivo data (from the Draize rabbit eye irritation test) were available. The test substances fell into the following categories: 18 severe irritants/corrosives (Category 1), 21 irritants (Category 2), and 21 non-irritants (No Category). Test substances that decreased tissue viability to ≤ 60% (compared to the negative control tissue) were considered to be eye irritants (Category 1/2). Test substances resulting in tissue viability of > 60% were considered to be non-irritants (No Category). For the assessed dataset and the classification cut-off of 60% viability, the EpiOcular-EIT provided 98% and 84% sensitivity, 64% and 90% specificity, and 85% and 86% overall accuracy for the literature reference and BASF proprietary substances, respectively. Applying a 50% tissue viability cut-off to distinguish between irritants and non-irritants resulted in 93% and 82% sensitivity, 68% and 100% specificity, and 84% and 88% accuracy for the literature reference and BASF proprietary substances, respectively. Further, in the EpiOcular-EIT (60% cut-off), 100% of severely irritating substances under-predicted by the BCOP assay were classified as Category 1/2. The results obtained in this study, based on 60 test substances, indicate that the EpiOcular-EIT and the BCOP assay can be combined in a testing strategy to identify strong/severe eye irritants (Category 1), moderate and mild eye irritants (Category 2), and non-irritants (No Category) in routine testing. In particular, when the bottom-up strategy with the 60% viability cut-off was employed, none of the severely irritating substances (Category 1) were under-predicted to be non-irritant. Sensitivity for Category 1/2 substances was 100% for literature reference substances and 89% for BASF SE proprietary substances.

Assessment of combinations of antiandrogenic compounds vinclozolin and flutamide in a yeast based reporter assay.

Humans are exposed to a combination of various substances such as cosmetic ingredients, drugs, biocides, pesticides and natural-occurring substances in food. The combined toxicological effects of two or more substances can simply be additive on the basis of response-addition, or it can be greater (synergistic) or smaller (antagonistic) than this. The need to assess combined effects of compounds with endocrine activity is currently discussed for regulatory risk assessment. We have used a well described yeast based androgen receptor transactivation assay YAS to assess the combinatorial effects of vinclozolin and flutamide; both mediating antiandrogenicity via the androgen receptor. Both vinclozolin and flutamide were antiandrogens of similar potency in the YAS assay. In the concentration range tested the two antiandrogens vinclozolin and flutamide did not act synergistically. Concentration additivity was observed in the linear, non-receptor-saturated concentration range. At high concentrations of one of the two substances tested the contribution of the second at lower concentration levels was less than additive. The combined response of both compounds at high concentration levels was also less than additive (saturation effect). At concentration levels which did not elicit a response of the individual compounds, the combination of these compounds also did not elicit a response.