Development of photo-amino acid derivative reactivity assay: a novel in chemico alternative method for predicting photoallergy.

Photoallergy test of cosmetics and several types of pharmaceutical substances is often necessary for obtaining approval from authorities. However, there are no official test guidelines for photoallergy evaluation. Therefore, we tried to establish a photoallergy test by utilizing an in chemico alternative sensitization method, amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA). To determine the criteria for judging the photoallergy potential, photo-ADRA with or without photoirradiation was performed using 60 photoallergenic chemicals, and cysteine and lysine derivatives were detected using high-performance liquid chromatography either by absorbance or fluorescence measurement. The accuracy of prediction was 81.4% (48 of 59) and 80.0% (48 of 60) using the absorbance and fluorescence methods, respectively. However, as chemicals can breakdown into multiple chemicals during photoirradiation, the absorbance method often cannot perform accurate detection due to co-elution, whereas the fluorescence method can do this due to lack of co-elution. Moreover, all eight chemicals that were found to be negative or false-positive for photoirritation in the 3T3 neutral red uptake phototoxicity test were confirmed as positive for photoallergy using this method. Furthermore, we prepared three types of pseudo-mixtures where we added one photoallergen along with five nonphotoallergens and performed the photo-ADRA by the ultraviolet and fluorescence methods. The result of the fluorescence method was almost the same as that obtained with the use of a single photoallergen and hence the outcome was not affected by the mixture. Thus, this study not only showed a method of evaluating the photoallergy potential of a single chemical but also a mixture, making it useful as an in chemico photoallergy alternative test.

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 newly developed means of HPLC-fluorescence analysis for predicting the skin sensitization potential of multi-constituent substances using ADRA.

The Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay (ADRA) is an in chemico alternative to animal testing for skin sensitization potential, in which measurements of multi-constituent solutions were sometimes affected by co-elution with nucleophilic reagents. So, we established a means of using fluorescence detection and verified the utility of a newly developed ADRA-fluorescence detection (ADRA-FL) test method. We tested three types of plant extracts-aloe, green tea, and licorice-and although unable to quantify nucleophilic reagents using ultraviolet detection due to co-elution of multiple components, the use of fluorescence detection enabled us to detect nucleophilic reagents selectively and predict each of the extract solutions to be sensitizers. Given that plant extracts contain immunosuppressants, there is no reason to expect that positive results in ADRA-FL testing will always be concordant with in vivo results. But given its ability to predict the sensitization potential of cosmetics and other widely used multi-constituent substances that had previously been difficult to test, the newly developed ADRA-FL is expected to contribute to future assessments of sensitization risks.

The underlying factors that explain why nucleophilic reagents rarely co-elute with test chemicals in the ADRA.

The Amino acid Derivative Reactivity Assay (ADRA) is an in chemico alternative to animal testing for skin sensitization potential that uses two different nucleophilic reagents and it is known that ADRA hardly exhibts co-elution compared with the Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) based on the same scientific principles. In this study, we have analyzed the factors underlying why co-elution, which is sometimes an issue during DPRA testing, virtually never occurs during ADRA testing. Chloramine T and dimethyl isophthalate both exhibited co-elution during DPRA testing, but when quantified at both DPRA's 220 nm and ADRA's 281 nm, we found that when the later detection wavelength was used, these test chemicals produced extremely small peaks that did not interfere with quantification of the peptides. And although both salicylic acid and penicillin G exhibited co-elution during DPRA testing, when tested at a concentration just 1% of that used in DPRA, the very broad peak produced at the higher concentration was reduced significantly. However, both these test chemicals exhibited very sharp peaks when the pH of the injection sample was adjusted to be acidic. Based on these results, we were able to clarify that the reasons why nucleophlic reagents hardly co-elute with test chemicals during ADRA testing are depend on the following three major reasons: (1)differences in the detection wavelength, (2)differences in test chemical concentrations in the injection sample, (3)differences in composition of the injection solvent.

Expanding the applicability of the amino acid derivative reactivity assay: Determining a weight for preparation of test chemical solutions that yield a predictive capacity identical to the conventional method using molar concentration and demonstrating the capacity to detect sensitizers in liquid mixtures.

INTRODUCTION: The amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA) is a novel in chemico alternative to animal testing for assessment of skin sensitization potential. The conventional ADRA protocol stipulates that test chemical solutions should be prepared to a specific molar concentration, allowing only for use of test chemicals with known molecular weights. Since many potential test substances are prepared by weight concentration or contain multiple unknown chemicals, this study was conducted to verify if it is possible to accurately assess the sensitization potential of test chemical solutions prepared at a specific weight concentration. METHODS: (1) Test chemical solutions for 82 chemicals were prepared at four different weight concentrations. Results were evaluated for agreement with in vivo results. (2) A liquid mixture comprising ten different non-sensitizers was prepared at 1 mg/mL. Ten different sensitizers of varying sensitization potencies were added individually to this mixture. The resulting pseudobinary mixtures were tested to confirm that the sensitizers could be detected. RESULTS: (1) The accuracies for test chemical solutions prepared at 0.5 and 0.2 mg/mL were 87.8% and 86.6%, respectively, which were roughly equivalent to the accuracy of 86.6% achieved with a solution prepared at the conventional molar concentration of 1 mM. In contrast, the accuracies for solutions prepared at 0.1 and 0.05 mg/mL were 82.9% and 74.4%, respectively, both of which were lower than that obtained with the conventional method. (2) Sensitizers added to the liquid mixture at 0.5 mg/mL were all correctly detected. DISCUSSION: Preparing test chemical solutions at a weight concentration of 0.5 mg/mL decreased false negatives and increased false positives while improving prediction accuracy, which suggests that the sensitization potential of mixtures can also be assessed with this method.

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.

High-content image analysis (HCIA) assay has the highest correlation with direct counting cell suspension compared to the ATP, WST-8 and Alamar blue assays for measurement of cytotoxicity.

INTRODUCTION: Various cytotoxicity assays measuring indicators such as enzyme activity, dye uptake, or cellular ATP content are often performed using 96-well microplates. However, recent reports show that cytotoxicity assays such as the ATP assay and MTS assay underestimate cytotoxicity when compounds such as anti-cancer drugs or mutagens induce cell hypertrophy whilst increasing intracellular ATP content. Therefore, we attempted to evaluate the reliability of a high-content image analysis (HCIA) assay to count cell number in a 96-well microplate automatically without using a cell-number indicator. METHODS: We compared cytotoxicity results of 25 compounds obtained from ATP, WST-8, Alamar blue, and HCIA assays with those directly measured using an automatic cell counter, and repeating individual experiments thrice. RESULTS: The number of compounds showing low correlation in cell viability measured using cytotoxicity assays compared to automatic cell counting (r2<0.8, at least 2 of 3 experiments) were follows: ATP assay; 7; WST-8 assay, 2; Alamar blue assay, 3; HCIA cytotoxicity assay, 0. Compounds for which correlation was poor in 3 assays, except the HCIA assay, induced an increase in nuclear and cell size. However, correlation between cell viability measured by automatic cell counter and the HCIA assay was strong regardless of nuclear and cell size. Additionally, correlation coefficients between IC50 values obtained from automatic cell counter and from cytotoxicity assays were as follows: ATP assay, 0.80; WST-8 assay, 0.84; Alamar blue assay, 0.84; and HCIA assay, 0.98. DISCUSSION: From the above, we showed that the HCIA cytotoxicity assay produces similar data to the automatic cell counter and is highly accurate in measuring cytotoxicity.