Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 364

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A dataset on 145 chemicals tested in alternative assays for skin sensitization undergoing prevalidation

Natsch, Andreas, Ryan, Cindy A., Foertsch, Leslie, Emter, Roger, Jaworska, Joanna, Gerberick, Frank, Kern, Petra·2013·Journal of Applied Toxicology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jat.2868

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 364

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.