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.

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.