使用皮肤过敏替代方法验证研究的数据确定边界范围:ADRA、IL-8 Luc Assay 和 EpiSensA。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q3 TOXICOLOGY Journal of Applied Toxicology Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI:10.1002/jat.4712
Toshihiko Kasahara, Yusuke Yamamoto, Natsumi Nakashima, Mika Imamura, Hideyuki Mizumachi, Sho Suzuki, Setsuya Aiba, Yutaka Kimura, Takao Ashikaga, Hajime Kojima, Atsushi Ono, Kazuhiko Matsumoto
{"title":"使用皮肤过敏替代方法验证研究的数据确定边界范围:ADRA、IL-8 Luc Assay 和 EpiSensA。","authors":"Toshihiko Kasahara, Yusuke Yamamoto, Natsumi Nakashima, Mika Imamura, Hideyuki Mizumachi, Sho Suzuki, Setsuya Aiba, Yutaka Kimura, Takao Ashikaga, Hajime Kojima, Atsushi Ono, Kazuhiko Matsumoto","doi":"10.1002/jat.4712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Most predictive models that use alternatives to animal experiments divide judgements into two classes with a cutoff value for each model. However, if the results of alternative methods are close to the cutoff values, the true result may be ambiguous because of variability in the data. Therefore, the OECD GL497 uses a judgement method that establishes a borderline range (BR) around a cutoff value using a statistical method. However, because there is no detailed description of how the BR is calculated, we clarified two specific points. The scale-constant correction method was used to calculate the median absolute deviation (MAD) around the median. In addition, the bottom-raised transformation method was used when the data were \"0\" because calculation of the BR requires that all data are logarithmic. Indeed, the BRs for the amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA), interleukin-8 reporter gene assay (IL-8 Luc), and epidermal sensitization assay (EpiSensA) were calculated using data from each validation study. The results showed that the BR for ADRA and IL-8 Luc ranged from 4.1 to 5.9 and 1.25 to 1.57, respectively. Furthermore, the BRs of four genes (ATF3, GCLM, DNAJB4, and IL-8) evaluated using EpiSensA ranged from 10.71 to 21.02, 1.64 to 2.45, 1.61 to 2.52, and 3.11 to 5.16, respectively. The difference (deviation) between the lower and upper BR limits and cutoff value for each alternative method were comparable to those of the alternative methods listed in the guidelines (DPRA, KerarinoSens, and h-CLAT) and thus were considered as adequate.</p>","PeriodicalId":15242,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Borderline Range Determined Using Data From Validation Study of Alternative Methods for Skin Sensitization: ADRA, IL-8 Luc Assay, and EpiSensA.\",\"authors\":\"Toshihiko Kasahara, Yusuke Yamamoto, Natsumi Nakashima, Mika Imamura, Hideyuki Mizumachi, Sho Suzuki, Setsuya Aiba, Yutaka Kimura, Takao Ashikaga, Hajime Kojima, Atsushi Ono, Kazuhiko Matsumoto\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jat.4712\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Most predictive models that use alternatives to animal experiments divide judgements into two classes with a cutoff value for each model. However, if the results of alternative methods are close to the cutoff values, the true result may be ambiguous because of variability in the data. Therefore, the OECD GL497 uses a judgement method that establishes a borderline range (BR) around a cutoff value using a statistical method. However, because there is no detailed description of how the BR is calculated, we clarified two specific points. The scale-constant correction method was used to calculate the median absolute deviation (MAD) around the median. In addition, the bottom-raised transformation method was used when the data were \\\"0\\\" because calculation of the BR requires that all data are logarithmic. Indeed, the BRs for the amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA), interleukin-8 reporter gene assay (IL-8 Luc), and epidermal sensitization assay (EpiSensA) were calculated using data from each validation study. The results showed that the BR for ADRA and IL-8 Luc ranged from 4.1 to 5.9 and 1.25 to 1.57, respectively. Furthermore, the BRs of four genes (ATF3, GCLM, DNAJB4, and IL-8) evaluated using EpiSensA ranged from 10.71 to 21.02, 1.64 to 2.45, 1.61 to 2.52, and 3.11 to 5.16, respectively. The difference (deviation) between the lower and upper BR limits and cutoff value for each alternative method were comparable to those of the alternative methods listed in the guidelines (DPRA, KerarinoSens, and h-CLAT) and thus were considered as adequate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15242,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Toxicology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.4712\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.4712","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大多数使用动物实验替代方法的预测模型将判断分为两类,每种模型都有一个临界值。但是,如果替代方法的结果接近临界值,由于数据的可变性,真实结果可能会模糊不清。因此,OECD GL497 采用了一种判断方法,即利用统计方法确定临界值周围的边界范围 (BR)。不过,由于没有详细说明 BR 的计算方法,我们特别澄清了两点。在计算中位数附近的绝对偏差(MAD)时,使用了标度恒定校正法。此外,当数据为 "0 "时,我们使用了底部抬升转换法,因为 BR 的计算要求所有数据都是对数。事实上,氨基酸衍生物反应性测定(ADRA)、白细胞介素-8报告基因测定(IL-8 Luc)和表皮致敏测定(EpiSensA)的生物浓缩率都是利用各验证研究的数据计算得出的。结果显示,ADRA 和 IL-8 Luc 的 BR 值分别为 4.1 至 5.9 和 1.25 至 1.57。此外,使用 EpiSensA 评估的四个基因(ATF3、GCLM、DNAJB4 和 IL-8)的 BR 分别为 10.71 至 21.02、1.64 至 2.45、1.61 至 2.52 和 3.11 至 5.16。每种替代方法的 BR 下限和上限之间的差异(偏差)以及临界值与指南中列出的替代方法(DPRA、KerarinoSens 和 h-CLAT)相当,因此被认为是适当的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Borderline Range Determined Using Data From Validation Study of Alternative Methods for Skin Sensitization: ADRA, IL-8 Luc Assay, and EpiSensA.

Most predictive models that use alternatives to animal experiments divide judgements into two classes with a cutoff value for each model. However, if the results of alternative methods are close to the cutoff values, the true result may be ambiguous because of variability in the data. Therefore, the OECD GL497 uses a judgement method that establishes a borderline range (BR) around a cutoff value using a statistical method. However, because there is no detailed description of how the BR is calculated, we clarified two specific points. The scale-constant correction method was used to calculate the median absolute deviation (MAD) around the median. In addition, the bottom-raised transformation method was used when the data were "0" because calculation of the BR requires that all data are logarithmic. Indeed, the BRs for the amino acid derivative reactivity assay (ADRA), interleukin-8 reporter gene assay (IL-8 Luc), and epidermal sensitization assay (EpiSensA) were calculated using data from each validation study. The results showed that the BR for ADRA and IL-8 Luc ranged from 4.1 to 5.9 and 1.25 to 1.57, respectively. Furthermore, the BRs of four genes (ATF3, GCLM, DNAJB4, and IL-8) evaluated using EpiSensA ranged from 10.71 to 21.02, 1.64 to 2.45, 1.61 to 2.52, and 3.11 to 5.16, respectively. The difference (deviation) between the lower and upper BR limits and cutoff value for each alternative method were comparable to those of the alternative methods listed in the guidelines (DPRA, KerarinoSens, and h-CLAT) and thus were considered as adequate.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
6.10%
发文量
145
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Applied Toxicology publishes peer-reviewed original reviews and hypothesis-driven research articles on mechanistic, fundamental and applied research relating to the toxicity of drugs and chemicals at the molecular, cellular, tissue, target organ and whole body level in vivo (by all relevant routes of exposure) and in vitro / ex vivo. All aspects of toxicology are covered (including but not limited to nanotoxicology, genomics and proteomics, teratogenesis, carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, reproductive and endocrine toxicology, toxicopathology, target organ toxicity, systems toxicity (eg immunotoxicity), neurobehavioral toxicology, mechanistic studies, biochemical and molecular toxicology, novel biomarkers, pharmacokinetics/PBPK, risk assessment and environmental health studies) and emphasis is given to papers of clear application to human health, and/or advance mechanistic understanding and/or provide significant contributions and impact to their field.
期刊最新文献
A Rapid Quantitative Assessment Method for Liver Damage Effects of Compounds Based on Zebrafish Liver Partition Area Ratio. Association of Stress Defense System With Fine Particulate Matter Exposure: Mechanism Analysis and Application Prospects. The Impact of NO2 on Epithelial Barrier Integrity of a Primary Cell-Based Air-Liquid Interface Model of the Nasal Respiratory Epithelium. The Role of PI3K/AKT/HIF-1α Pathway in the Effect of Nano-TiO2 on Lactate Production in TM4 Cells. Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1