Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2009 Oct;55(1):90-6. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.06.005. Epub 2009 Jun 10.

Application of a weight of evidence approach to assessing discordant sensitisation datasets: implications for REACH.

Author information

  • 1DABMEB Consultancy Ltd, Sharnbrook, Bedford MK44 1PR, UK. david.basketter@ukonline.co.uk

Abstract

The local lymph node assay (LLNA) is the assay of choice in European regulatory toxicology. As with other toxicology/sensitisation assays, it has a potential for false results, the anionic surfactant sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) representing a classic example. In the work reported here, examples of false positives in the LLNA are compared to published "benchmarks" such as SLS. Clear false positives (e.g. oleic acid) are also contrasted with examples where data interpretation is more challenging. As the LLNA will be applicable to >30,000 chemicals under REACH, and in the light of animal welfare considerations to do no more than the absolute minimum of animal testing, results from a single LLNA often represent the only available data on sensitisation. This reinforces the need to ensure data from this assay are interpreted intelligently, using scientific analysis of results and considering the weight of evidence, before decisions are made on which substances should be classified as representing a skin sensitisation hazard. In chemical classes where the LLNA has been shown to be an inappropriate assay other standardised methods (e.g. the Buehler or Magnusson and Kligman guinea pig tests [OECD 406]) should be employed as the first choice assays.

PMID:
19523501
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk