The skin is a potential route of exposure to antimicrobial cleaning products (ACP). Skin irritation, reversible damage to the skin, is an endpoint for protecting consumers and operators accidently exposed to these complex mixtures. To assess skin irritation of 24 ACP formulations, a new protocol was developed and adapted from OECD Test Guideline No. 439 with EpiDerm™ (epidermis model) replaced by Phenion® FT (full thickness tissue, including epidermis and dermis) as the test system. A full thickness tissue was utilized to provide a more human in vivo-like model. Formulations were applied to Phenion® FT and cell viability measured by MTT reduction after a 15-min exposure and 42 h post exposure period. A prediction model was applied, and results compared with in vivo rabbit skin irritation data. Concordance between in vivo and in vitro was demonstrated to be suitable (i.e., sensitivity 78%, specificity 83%, and accuracy 79%) using this modified OECD Test Guideline No. 439 method with a 70% cell viability selected as the most reasonable cut off for discriminating non-irritants (EPA Class IV). These results were considered suitable to develop a draft IATA i.e., with any ACP formulation identified as EPA Category IV in this test. The method will be further refined to distinguish irritant categories.

Background: Test methods to inform hazard characterization and labeling of pesticides to protect human health are typically conducted using laboratory animals, and for skin irritation/corrosion the rabbit Draize test is currently required by many regulatory agencies. Although the Draize test is generally regarded to provide protective classifications for human health, new approach methodologies (NAMs) have been developed that offer more human relevant models that circumvent the uncertainty associated with species differences that exist between rabbits and humans. Despite wide applicability and use of these test methods across a broad range of chemicals, they have not been widely adopted for testing pesticides and pesticidal formulations. One of the barriers to adoption of these methods in this sector is low concordance with results from the Draize rabbit test, particularly for chemicals within the mild to moderate irritation spectrum. Methods: This review compares and contrasts the extent to which available models used in skin irritation testing mimic the anatomy and physiology of human skin, and how each aligns with the known key events leading to chemically-induced adverse skin irritation and corrosion. Doing so fully characterizes the human relevance of each method. Results: As alternatives to the rabbit Draize test, several protocols using ex vivo, in chemico, and in vitro skin models are available as internationally harmonized test guidelines. These methods rely on a variety of models of human skin, including excised rodent skin, synthetic biochemical models of barrier function, cell culture systems, and reconstructed human tissue models. We find these models exhibit biological and mechanistic relevance aligned with human skin irritation responses. Further, recent retrospective analyses have shown that the reproducibility of the Draize test is less than 50% for mild and moderate responses, with many of the replicate predictions spanning more than one category (e.g., a moderate response reported in one study followed by a non-irritant response reported in another study). Conclusions: Based on this comparative evaluation, we recommend top-down and bottom-up testing strategies that use the most human relevant in vitro test methods for skin irritation and corrosion classification of pesticides and pesticide formulations. To further discriminate among mild and non-irritant formulations, optimization of a cytokine release protocol and subsequent analyses of reference formulation test results is recommended.

The standard treatment for end‐stage organ failure is transplantation, but demand for organs has always vastly outstripped supply. Discussions are ongoing about the feasibility of addressing the organ shortage through measures like increasing organ donations, improving post‐transplant outcomes, and xenotransplantation. This paper examines the rationale, risks, and costs of xenotransplantation, such as xenozoonoses, creating a new form of industrialized animal farming, abandoning animal ethics principles, and the opportunity costs of investing finite research dollars in xenotransplantation instead of investing in more viable strategies. Alternative strategies that can ethically and effectively address the demand for heart, kidney, and other transplants are recommended: Improving disease prevention and management to reduce demand for transplant organs, improving transplantation methods, and systemic changes to donor policies and organ recovery methods to increase overall supply. Upon careful exploration of the full landscape of organ transplantation, it is considered whether these alternative strategies that do not impose the definite harms and significant risks of xenotransplantation are the most ethical and effective means to increase life‐saving options and improve clinical outcomes for patients in organ failure.

In recent years, a global increase in allergy incidence following chemical exposure has been observed. While the process of skin sensitization is well characterized through the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework, the immunological mechanisms underlying respiratory sensitization remain less well understood. Respiratory sensitizers are classified as substances of very high concern (SVHC) under the European Union (EU) regulation for the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals (REACH), emphasizing the importance of evaluating respiratory tract sensitization as a critical hazard. However, the existing new approach methodologies (NAMs) for the identification of skin sensitizers lack the capacity to differentiate between skin and respiratory sensitizers. Thus, it is imperative to develop physiologically relevant test systems specifically tailored to assess respiratory sensitizers. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ALIsens^®, a three-dimensional (3D) in vitro alveolar model designed for the identification of respiratory sensitizers and to determine its ability to correctly identify sensitizers. In this study, we used a range of skin sensitizers and non-sensitizers to define the optimal exposure dose, identify biomarkers, and establish tentative thresholds for correct sensitizer classification. The results demonstrate that ALIsens^® is a promising in vitro complex model that could successfully discriminate respiratory sensitizers from skin sensitizers and non-sensitizers. Furthermore, the thymic stromal lymphopoietin receptor (TSLPr) cell surface marker was confirmed as a reliable biomarker for predicting respiratory sensitization hazards.

Summary: Publication of scientific findings is fundamental for research, pushing innovation and generating interventions that benefit society, but it is not without biases. Publication bias is generally recognized as journal’s preference for publishing studies based on the direction and magnitude of results. However, early evidence of a newly recognized type of publication bias has emerged in which journal policy, peer reviewers, or editors request that animal data be provided to validate studies produced using nonanimal-based approaches. We describe herein “animal methods bias” in publishing: a preference for animal-based methods where they may not be necessary or where nonanimal-based methods may be suitable, which affects the likelihood of a manuscript being accepted for publication. To gather evidence of animal methods bias, we set out to collect the experiences and perceptions of scientists and reviewers related to animal- and nonanimal-based experiments during peer review. We created a survey with 33 questions that was completed by 90 respondents working in various biological fields. Twenty-one survey respondents indicated that they have carried out animal-based experiments for the sole purpose of anticipating reviewer requests. Thirty-one survey respondents indicated that they have been asked by peer reviewers to add animal experimental data to their nonanimal study; 14 of these felt the request was sometimes justified, and 11 did not think it was justified. The data presented provide preliminary evidence of animal methods bias and indicate that status quo and conservatism biases may explain such attitudes by peer reviewers and editors.