4.5 Article

Catch-up validation study of an in vitro skin irritation test method based on an open source reconstructed epidermis (phase I)

期刊

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
卷 36, 期 -, 页码 238-253

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2016.07.007

关键词

Skin irritation test; Reconstructed human epidermis; Open source concept; Catch-up validation study; Cross-contamination; OECD performance standards

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have developed a new in vitro skin irritation test based on an open source reconstructed epidermis (OS-REp) with openly accessible protocols for tissue production and test performance. Due to structural, mechanistic and procedural similarity, a blinded catch-up validation study for skin irritation according to OECD Performance Standards (PS) was conducted in three laboratories to promote regulatory acceptance, with OS-REp models produced at a single production site only. While overall sensitivity and predictive capacity met the PS requirements, overall specificity was only 57%. A thorough analysis of the test results led to the assumption that some of the false-positive classifications could have been evokedby volatile skin-irritating chemicals tested in the same culture plate as the non-irritants falsely predicted as irritants. With GC/MS and biological approaches the cross-contamination effect was confirmed and the experimental set-up adapted accordingly. Retesting of the affected chemicals with the improved experimental set-up and otherwise identical protocol resulted in correct classifications as non-irritants. Taking these re-test results into account, 93% overall sensitivity, 70% specificity and 82% accuracy was achieved, which is in accordance with the OECD PS. A sufficient reliability of the method was indicated by a with-in-laboratory-reproducibility of 85-95% and a between-laboratory-reproducibility of 90%. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据