The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A dataset on 145 chemicals tested in alternative assays for skin sensitization undergoing prevalidation
Abstract
Skin sensitization is a key endpoint for cosmetic ingredients, with a forthcoming ban for animal testing in Europe. Four alternative tests have so far been submitted to ECVAM prevalidation: (i) MUSST and (ii) h‐Clat assess surface markers on dendritic cell lines, (iii) the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) measures reactivity with model peptides and (iv) the KeratinoSens TM assay which is based on detection of Nrf2‐induced luciferase. It is anticipated that only an integrated testing strategy (ITS) based on a battery of tests might give a full replacement providing also a sensitization potency assessment, but this concept should be tested with a data‐driven analysis. Here we report a database on 145 chemicals reporting the quantitative endpoints measured in a U937‐ test, the DPRA and KeratinoSens TM . It can serve to develop data‐driven ITS approaches as we show in a parallel paper and provides a view as to the current ability to predict with in vitro tests as we are entering 2013. It may also serve as reference database when benchmarking new molecules with in vitro based read‐across and find use as a reference database when evaluating new tests. The tests and combinations thereof were evaluated for predictivity, and overall a similar predictivity was found as before on three‐fold smaller datasets. Analysis of the dose–response parameters of the individual tests indicates a correlation to sensitization potency. Detailed analysis of chemicals false‐negative and false‐positive in two tests helped to define limitations in the tests but also in the database derived from animal studies. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Assessing skin sensitization hazard in mice and men using non-animal test methods
Urbisch, D., Mehling, A., Guth, K., Ramirez, T., Honarvar, N., Kolle, S., Landsiedel, R., Jaworska, J., Kern, P. S., Gerberick, F., et al. (2015) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.12.008 · Cited by 398
Self-citationMarx, U. (2016) · ALTEX · doi:10.14573/altex.1603161 · Cited by 295
Non-animal methods to predict skin sensitization (I): the Cosmetics Europe database
Hoffmann, S., Kleinstreuer, N., Alépée, N., Allen, D., Api, A. M., Ashikaga, T., Clouet, E., Cluzel, M., Desprez, B., Gellatly, N., et al. (2018) · Critical Reviews in Toxicology · doi:10.1080/10408444.2018.1429385 · Cited by 188
Self-citationZhu, H., Zhang, J., Kim, M. T., Boison, A., Sedykh, A., & Moran, K. (2014) · Chemical Research in Toxicology · doi:10.1021/tx500145h · Cited by 154
Metadata
- Authors
- Natsch, A., Ryan, C. A., Foertsch, L., Emter, R., Jaworska, J., Gerberick, F., & Kern, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Toxicology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-04-09
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1337-1352
- ISSN
- 0260-437X (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1263
- OpenAlex
- W1541066427
- Cited by
- 364
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 29.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A dataset on 145 chemicals tested in alternative assays for skin sensitization undergoing prevalidation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jat.2868
- The paper
- Natsch, A., Ryan, C. A., Foertsch, L., Emter, R., Jaworska, J., Gerberick, F., & Kern, P. (2013). A dataset on 145 chemicals tested in alternative assays for skin sensitization undergoing prevalidation. Journal of Applied Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.2868
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.