进一步优化大分子眼刺激试验(OptiSafeTM)。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology Pub Date : 2023-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-28 DOI:10.1080/15569527.2023.2170067
Stewart Lebrun, Sara Chavez, Linda Nguyen, Roxanne Chan
{"title":"进一步优化大分子眼刺激试验(OptiSafeTM)。","authors":"Stewart Lebrun, Sara Chavez, Linda Nguyen, Roxanne Chan","doi":"10.1080/15569527.2023.2170067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>OptiSafe<sup>TM</sup> (OS) is a shelf stable, nonanimal test for ocular irritation. A recent database search found that half of the OS false positive (FP) materials were associated with reactive oxygen chemistries but were not eye irritants <i>in vivo</i> (based on historical rabbit studies by other groups). We hypothesized that naturally occurring tear antioxidants protect the eye from reactive chemistries <i>in vivo</i> and that specific tear chemistries might help explain why some materials are FP for nonanimal tests but are reported as nonirritants in the live animal. To test this hypothesis, a prior study evaluated tear antioxidants and found that the tear antioxidant ascorbic acid, added at human physiological tear levels to the OS test, specifically reduced the measured values for these FPs but did not reduce the true-positive rate. Based on these findings, the OS test method was further optimized. The purpose of the current study was to comprehensively evaluate the performance of the further optimized test method for detection of ocular irritants.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The OS test measures chemically induced damage to macromolecules and relates these measured values to ocular irritancy. To improve the performance of OS, we made updates to the material to be tested physiochemical handling procedures, prediction model, and test method to include tear-level concentrations of ascorbic acid. We then retested the 78 chemicals from the prior OS-coded validation study in triplicate and compared the accuracy of the 'nonirritant versus irritant' prediction for the further optimized method with the prior results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We report that for the detection of 'nonirritant' versus 'irritant' (GHS NC versus categories 2B/A and 1) test substances, the further optimized OS test with ascorbic acid compared with the original version has a FP rate that is reduced from 40.0 to 22.2%, the false-negative (FN) rate remains at 0.0%, and the accuracy improved from 80.3% to 89.2%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A comparison to OECD-adopted tests demonstrates that the further optimized OS test, like the original method, has a higher accuracy and lower FN rate for the detection of 'nonirritants' versus 'irritants' (GHS Category NC versus 2B/A and 1) than the other eye irritation tests (BCOP, EpiOcular<sup>TM</sup> Eye Irritation Test, ICE, Ocular Irritection<sup>®</sup>, and STE).</p>","PeriodicalId":11023,"journal":{"name":"Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology","volume":"42 1","pages":"38-48"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10381028/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Further optimisation of a macromolecular ocular irritation test (OptiSafe<sup>TM</sup>).\",\"authors\":\"Stewart Lebrun, Sara Chavez, Linda Nguyen, Roxanne Chan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15569527.2023.2170067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>OptiSafe<sup>TM</sup> (OS) is a shelf stable, nonanimal test for ocular irritation. A recent database search found that half of the OS false positive (FP) materials were associated with reactive oxygen chemistries but were not eye irritants <i>in vivo</i> (based on historical rabbit studies by other groups). We hypothesized that naturally occurring tear antioxidants protect the eye from reactive chemistries <i>in vivo</i> and that specific tear chemistries might help explain why some materials are FP for nonanimal tests but are reported as nonirritants in the live animal. To test this hypothesis, a prior study evaluated tear antioxidants and found that the tear antioxidant ascorbic acid, added at human physiological tear levels to the OS test, specifically reduced the measured values for these FPs but did not reduce the true-positive rate. Based on these findings, the OS test method was further optimized. The purpose of the current study was to comprehensively evaluate the performance of the further optimized test method for detection of ocular irritants.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The OS test measures chemically induced damage to macromolecules and relates these measured values to ocular irritancy. To improve the performance of OS, we made updates to the material to be tested physiochemical handling procedures, prediction model, and test method to include tear-level concentrations of ascorbic acid. We then retested the 78 chemicals from the prior OS-coded validation study in triplicate and compared the accuracy of the 'nonirritant versus irritant' prediction for the further optimized method with the prior results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We report that for the detection of 'nonirritant' versus 'irritant' (GHS NC versus categories 2B/A and 1) test substances, the further optimized OS test with ascorbic acid compared with the original version has a FP rate that is reduced from 40.0 to 22.2%, the false-negative (FN) rate remains at 0.0%, and the accuracy improved from 80.3% to 89.2%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A comparison to OECD-adopted tests demonstrates that the further optimized OS test, like the original method, has a higher accuracy and lower FN rate for the detection of 'nonirritants' versus 'irritants' (GHS Category NC versus 2B/A and 1) than the other eye irritation tests (BCOP, EpiOcular<sup>TM</sup> Eye Irritation Test, ICE, Ocular Irritection<sup>®</sup>, and STE).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11023,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"38-48\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10381028/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15569527.2023.2170067\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15569527.2023.2170067","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:OptiSafeTM(OS)是一种货架稳定的非动物眼刺激性检测方法。最近的一次数据库搜索发现,有一半的 OS 假阳性(FP)物质与活性氧化学成分有关,但在体内并不是眼刺激物(基于其他小组的兔子历史研究)。我们推测,天然泪液抗氧化剂可保护眼睛免受体内活性化学物质的伤害,而特定的泪液化学物质可能有助于解释为什么某些材料在非动物试验中是FP,但在活体动物试验中却被报告为非刺激性物质。为了验证这一假设,先前的一项研究对泪液抗氧化剂进行了评估,结果发现,在 OS 测试中添加人体生理泪液水平的泪液抗氧化剂抗坏血酸,可特别降低这些 FP 的测量值,但不会降低真实阳性率。基于这些发现,OS 测试方法得到了进一步优化。本研究的目的是全面评估进一步优化的测试方法在检测眼刺激物方面的性能:OS 测试测量化学物质对大分子的损伤,并将这些测量值与眼刺激性联系起来。为了提高 OS 的性能,我们更新了待测材料的理化处理程序、预测模型和测试方法,将抗坏血酸的泪液浓度纳入其中。然后,我们对之前 OS 编码验证研究中的 78 种化学物质进行了一式三份的重新测试,并将进一步优化的方法中 "非刺激性与刺激性 "预测的准确性与之前的结果进行了比较:结果:我们发现,在检测 "无刺激性 "与 "刺激性"(全球统一制度 NC 与 2B/A 和 1 类)测试物质时,使用抗坏血酸的进一步优化 OS 测试与原始版本相比,FP 率从 40.0% 降至 22.2%,假阴性率(FN)保持在 0.0%,准确率从 80.3% 提高到 89.2%:与经合组织(OECD)采用的检测方法相比,进一步优化的 OS 检测方法与原始方法一样,在检测 "非刺激性 "与 "刺激性"(全球统一制度 NC 类与 2B/A 类和 1 类)时,比其他眼刺激性检测方法(BCOP、EpiOcularTM 眼刺激性检测、ICE、Ocular Irritection® 和 STE)具有更高的准确性和更低的假阴性率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Further optimisation of a macromolecular ocular irritation test (OptiSafeTM).

Purpose: OptiSafeTM (OS) is a shelf stable, nonanimal test for ocular irritation. A recent database search found that half of the OS false positive (FP) materials were associated with reactive oxygen chemistries but were not eye irritants in vivo (based on historical rabbit studies by other groups). We hypothesized that naturally occurring tear antioxidants protect the eye from reactive chemistries in vivo and that specific tear chemistries might help explain why some materials are FP for nonanimal tests but are reported as nonirritants in the live animal. To test this hypothesis, a prior study evaluated tear antioxidants and found that the tear antioxidant ascorbic acid, added at human physiological tear levels to the OS test, specifically reduced the measured values for these FPs but did not reduce the true-positive rate. Based on these findings, the OS test method was further optimized. The purpose of the current study was to comprehensively evaluate the performance of the further optimized test method for detection of ocular irritants.

Materials and methods: The OS test measures chemically induced damage to macromolecules and relates these measured values to ocular irritancy. To improve the performance of OS, we made updates to the material to be tested physiochemical handling procedures, prediction model, and test method to include tear-level concentrations of ascorbic acid. We then retested the 78 chemicals from the prior OS-coded validation study in triplicate and compared the accuracy of the 'nonirritant versus irritant' prediction for the further optimized method with the prior results.

Results: We report that for the detection of 'nonirritant' versus 'irritant' (GHS NC versus categories 2B/A and 1) test substances, the further optimized OS test with ascorbic acid compared with the original version has a FP rate that is reduced from 40.0 to 22.2%, the false-negative (FN) rate remains at 0.0%, and the accuracy improved from 80.3% to 89.2%.

Conclusion: A comparison to OECD-adopted tests demonstrates that the further optimized OS test, like the original method, has a higher accuracy and lower FN rate for the detection of 'nonirritants' versus 'irritants' (GHS Category NC versus 2B/A and 1) than the other eye irritation tests (BCOP, EpiOcularTM Eye Irritation Test, ICE, Ocular Irritection®, and STE).

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
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
40
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology is an international, peer-reviewed journal that covers all types of harm to cutaneous and ocular systems. Areas of particular interest include pharmaceutical and medical products; consumer, personal care, and household products; and issues in environmental and occupational exposures. In addition to original research papers, reviews and short communications are invited, as well as concise, relevant, and critical reviews of topics of contemporary significance.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信