Repository hosted by TU Delft Library

Home · Contact · About · Disclaimer ·

UV-induced effects

Publication files not online:

Author: Liebsch, M. · Spielmann, H. · Pape, W. · Krul, C. · Deguercy, A. · Eskes, C.A.M.
Institution: TNO Kwaliteit van Leven
Source:ATLA Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, SUPPL. 1, 33, 131-146
Identifier: 238570
Keywords: Health · Physiological Sciences · cosmetic · hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase · acute toxicity · allergenicity · animal testing replacement · cell line · chromosome aberration · comet assay · DNA damage · gene mutation · genotoxicity · human · in vivo study · micronucleus · model · nonhuman · photosensitization · phototoxicity · point mutation · priority journal · radiation exposure · radiation hazard · review · standardization · ultraviolet A radiation · ultraviolet radiation · validation process · Animal Testing Alternatives · Animals · Cell Line · Consumer Product Safety · Cosmetics · Dermatitis, Photoallergic · Dermatitis, Phototoxic · DNA · DNA Damage · Drug Stability · Erythrocytes · European Union · Hemolysis · Humans · Mutagenicity Tests · Mutagens · Photosensitizing Agents · Skin · Skin Irritancy Tests · Ultraviolet Rays · Animalia


Regulatory requirements: According to the current Notes for Guidance of the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products (SCCNFP), cosmetic ingredients and mixtures of ingredients absorbing UV light (in particular UV filter chemicals used, for example, to ensure the light stability of cosmetics or used in sun protection products) should be tested for acute phototoxic and photogenotoxic potential. Testing for photosensitisation (immunological photoallergy) potential is not specifically required, but it is nevertheless often performed. Acute phototoxicity: Due to a thorough multi-stage and multi-centre validation trial (1992-1998) the In Vitro 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test (3T3-NRU-PT) had already gained acceptance by the SCCNFP in 1998, and it is recommended by the EMEA/CPMP as a basic preclinical test for acute phototoxicity. It was accepted as Method No. 41 in Annex V to Directive 67/548/EEC in the year 2000, and was accepted as the new Test Guideline 432 by the OECD in 2002. The 3T3-NRU-PT is regarded as a basic screen for identifying acute phototoxic potential. Two additional in vitro tests, formally evaluated in controlled blind trials, the RBC Phototoxicity Test (RBC-PT) and the Human 3-D Skin Model Phototoxicity Test (H3D-PT), are regarded as useful and important adjunct tests to overcome some limitations of the 3T3-NRU-PT, namely the fairly low UVB tolerance of the 3T3 fibroblasts and the inability to model the bioavailability of test materials topically applied to the skin. In addition, the RBC-PT permits an evaluation of the phototoxic mechanisms involved. In conclusion, the identification of acute phototoxic hazards is now regarded as being sufficiently covered by in vitro tests, so that animal testing for that endpoint can now be 100% replaced. Photogenotoxicity: In the area of photogenotoxicity, almost the whole battery of in vitro genetic toxicity tests have been (or are currently being) converted into test protocols of photogenotoxicity tests. Tests exclusively predictive for gene mutation, for example, the Photo-Ames (P-Ames) Test and the Photo-Thymidine Kinase Test (P-TKT), have become less important than tests for clastogenic effects (for example, the Photo-Chromosome Aberration Test [P-CAT] and the Photo-Micronucleus Test [P-MNT]). In addition, a number of promising indicator tests, such as the Photo-Comet Assay (P-Comet) have been developed. Although routinely used, to date none of the new photogenotoxicity tests have been formally validated. Therefore, the P-MNT and the P-Comet are currently being evaluated in a formal interlaboratory validation study. It is expected that these in vitro photogenotoxicity test methods may become available as validated and accepted methods within the next five years. Photoallergy (Photosensitisation): In the area of photoallergy (photosensitisation), as development of predictive in vitro tests for delayed contact sensitisation (allergenicity) potential without the involvement of light, due to a lack of ability to model the complex mechanisms underlying allergy, no promising in vitro methods to predict photo-sensitisation potential are currently in sight (see the section on skin sensitisation). One in vitro screening method, which models the covalent binding of a light activated chemical to human serum albumin, may become relevant. However, while the binding of an excited chemical to proteins is a prerequisite for photoallergy, this is not a sufficient predictor on its own. The only promising alternatives currently under development are in vivo refinements, like the Photo Local Lymph Node Assay (PLLNA). Once a reliable and predictive in vitro test battery and strategy for the assessment of "dark" sensitisation potential have been developed and accepted, their adaptation into similar photosensitisation testing will become possible.