Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) initiated by chemical sensitizers is an important public health concern. To prevent ACD, it is important to identify chemical allergens to limit the use of such compounds in various products. EU legislations, as well as increased mechanistic knowledge of skin sensitization have promoted development of non-animal based approaches for hazard classification of chemicals. GARD is an in vitro testing strategy based on measurements of a genomic biomarker signature. However, current GARD protocols are optimized for identification of predictive biomarker signatures, and not suitable for standardized screening. This study describes improvements to GARD to progress from biomarker discovery into a reliable and cost-effective assay for routine testing. Gene expression measurements were transferred to NanoString nCounter platform, normalization strategy was adjusted to fit serial arrival of testing substances, and a novel strategy to correct batch variations was presented. When challenging GARD with 29 compounds, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy could be estimated to 94%, 83% and 90%, respectively. In conclusion, we present a GARD workflow with improved sample capacity, retained predictive performance, and in a format adapted to standardized screening. We propose that GARD is ready to be considered as part of an integrated testing strategy for skin sensitization.

Cosmetic products need to have a proven efficacy combined with a comprehensive toxicological assessment. Before the current Cosmetic regulation N°1223/2009, the 7th Amendment to the European Cosmetics Directive has banned animal testing for cosmetic products and for cosmetic ingredients in 2004 and 2009, respectively. An increasing number of alternatives to animal testing has been developed and validated for safety and efficacy testing of cosmetic products and cosmetic ingredients. For example, 2D cell culture models derived from human skin can be used to evaluate anti-inflammatory properties, or to predict skin sensitization potential; 3D human skin equivalent models are used to evaluate skin irritation potential; and excised human skin is used as the gold standard for the evaluation of dermal absorption. The aim of this manuscript is to give an overview of the main in vitro and ex vivo alternative models used in the safety testing of cosmetic products with a focus on regulatory requirements, genotoxicity potential, skin sensitization potential, skin and eye irritation, endocrine properties, and dermal absorption. Advantages and limitations of each model in safety testing of cosmetic products are discussed and novel technologies capable of addressing these limitations are presented.

Proactive identification of chemicals with skin sensitizing properties is a key toxicological endpoint within chemical safety assessment, as required by legislation for registration of chemicals. In order to meet demands of increased animal welfare and facilitate increased testing efficiency also in nonregulatory settings, considerable efforts have been made to develop nonanimal approaches to replace current animal testing. Genomic Allergen Rapid Detection (GARD™) is a state-of-the-art technology platform, the most advanced application of which is the assay for assessment of skin sensitizing chemicals, GARD™skin. The methodology is based on a dendritic cell (DC)-like cell line, thus mimicking the mechanistic events leading to initiation and modulation of downstream immunological responses. Induced transcriptional changes are measured following exposure to test chemicals, providing a detailed evaluation of cell activation. These changes are associated with the immunological decision-making role of DCs in vivo and include among other phenotypic modifications, up-regulation of co-stimulatory molecules, induction of cellular and oxidative stress pathways and xenobiotic responses, and provide a holistic readout of substance-induced DC activation. Here, results from an inter-laboratory ring trial of GARD™skin, conducted in compliance with OECD guidance documents and comprising a blinded chemical test set of 28 chemicals, are summarized. The assay was found to be transferable to naïve laboratories, with an inter-laboratory reproducibility of 92.0%. The within-laboratory reproducibility ranged between 82.1% and 88.9%, whereas the cumulative predictive accuracy across the 3 laboratories was 93.8%. It was concluded that GARD™skin is a robust and reliable method for the identification of skin sensitizing chemicals and suitable for stand-alone use or as a constituent of integrated testing. These data form the basis for the regulatory validation of GARD™skin.

Hundreds of chemicals have been identified as skin sensitizers. These are chemicals that possess the ability to induce hypersensitivity reactions in humans, giving rise to a condition termed allergic contact dermatitis. The capacity to limit hazardous exposure to such chemicals depends upon the ability to accurately identify and characterize their skin sensitizing potency. This has traditionally been accomplished using animal models, but their widespread use offers challenges from both an ethical and a scientific perspective. Comprehensive efforts have been made by the scientific community to develop new approach methodologies (NAMs) capable of replacing in vivo assays, which have successfully yielded several methods that can identify skin sensitizers. However, there is still a lack of new approaches that can effectively measure skin sensitizing potency. We present a novel methodology for quantitative assessment of skin sensitizing potency, which is founded on the already established protocols of the GARDskin assay. This approach analyses dose–response relationships in the GARDskin assay to identify chemical-specific concentrations that are sufficient to induce a positive response in the assay. We here compare results for 22 skin sensitizers analyzed using this method with both human and LLNA potency reference data and show that the results correlate strongly and significantly with both metrics (r_LLNA = 0.81, p = 9.1 × 10^–5; r_Human = 0.74, p = 1.5 × 10^–3). In conclusion, the results suggest that the proposed GARDskin dose–response methodology provides a novel non-animal approach for quantitative potency assessment, which could represent an important step towards reducing the need for in vivo experiments.

Toxicological assessments of skin sensitizers have progressed towards a higher reliance on non-animal methods. Current technological trends aim to extend the utility of non-animal methods to accurately characterize skin-sensitizing potency. The GARDskin Dose–Response assay has previously been described; it was shown that its main readout, cDV₀ concentration, is associated with skin-sensitizing potency. The ability to predict potency from cDV₀ in the form of NESILs derived from LLNAs or human NOELs was evaluated. The assessment of a dataset of 30 chemicals showed that the cDV₀ values still correlated strongly and significantly with both LLNA EC3 and human NOEL values (ρ = 0.645–0.787 [p < 1 × 10⁻³]). A composite potency value that combined LLNA and human potency data was defined, which aided the performance of the proposed model for the prediction of NESILs. The potency model accurately predicted sensitizing potency, with cross-validation errors of 2.75 and 3.22 fold changes compared with NESILs from LLNAs and humans, respectively. In conclusion, the results suggest that the GARDskin Dose–Response assay may be used to derive an accurate quantitative continuous potency estimate of skin sensitizers.

Recent years have seen a surge in development of alternative methods for assessment of skin sensitizers. This has been in order to meet the regulatory and industrial demand for accurate safety assessment without the use of animal experimentation, and to address societal expectations. Today, 3 such assays are formally validated and have achieved OECD Guideline status (EC, 2013, 2014, 2015). However, partly due to insufficient predictive capacity, none of the validated assays have received a recommendation for use as a stand-alone method. In addition, there is a view that accurate hazard identification must be based upon an assessment of several key events in the relevant Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP).