Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests for cosmetic ingredients. (8) Evaluation of cytotoxicity tests on SIRC cells
Abstract
Two common assays, the neutral red uptake assay (SIRC-NRU) and the crystal violet staining assay (SIRC-CVS), were evaluated as alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test (Draize test).The cytotoxicity of thirty-eight cosmetic ingredients as well as a physiological saline solution was determined on SIRC cells at five to seven laboratories. SIRC-NRU and SIRC-CVS were performed according to the common standard operating procedure (SOP). The 50% effective concentration (EC(50)) was determined for each ingredient. The EC(50) of SIRC-CVS was similar to that of SIRC-NRU, showing a strong correlation (r=0.995). The coefficient of variation (CV) of EC(50) which represents the interlaboratory reproducibility of SIRC-NRU was 32.1%, whereas that of SIRC-CVS was 32.8%. The logarithmically transformed EC(50) values showed a strong correlation with the maximal average Draize total score (MAS) (SIRC-NRU: r=-0.816 (n=30), SIRC-CVS: r=-0.805 (n=29)). Both methods could be applied to water-insoluble substances and dyes. However, strong acids, alkanolamines and alcohols had a tendency to deviate from the linear regression lines which were obtained from the in vivo and in vitro data for both methods in the present study. These results suggest that cytotoxicological testing on SIRC cells may provide an alternative method to the Draize test for cosmetic ingredients.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Interlaboratory studies show substantial variability in IC50 and related cytotoxicity metrics, frequently in the range of approximately 20% to >40%, depending on system and endpoint.
“Interlaboratory studies further show substantial variability in IC50 and related cytotoxicity metrics, frequently in the range of approximately 20% to >40%, depending on system and endpoint (Tani et al., 1999; Gruber and Nickel, 2023).”
From Cytotoxicity across OECD methods is not a single endpoint: context-dependent roles, variability and implications for decision-making (2026) · cites this paper as Tani et al., 1999
Comparative analyses show that MTT, neutral red uptake, resazurin and ATP assays have endpoint-dependent sensitivity and variability, with metabolic assays often detecting early functional stress and membrane-integrity assays reflecting later loss of cellular integrity.
“Comparative analyses of MTT, neutral red uptake, resazurin and ATP assays show endpoint-dependent sensitivity and variability, with metabolic assays often detecting early functional stress and membrane-integrity assays reflecting later loss of cellular integrity (Riss et al., 2016; Tani et al., 1999).”
From Cytotoxicity across OECD methods is not a single endpoint: context-dependent roles, variability and implications for decision-making (2026) · cites this paper as Tani et al., 1999
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Thoma, T., Löhr, L., Demuth, P., Hambruch, N., Oesch, F., & Landsiedel, R. (2026) · NAM Journal · doi:10.1016/j.namjnl.2026.100126
- Authors
- Tani, N., Kinoshita, S., Okamoto, Y., Kotani, M., Itagaki, H., Murakami, N., Sugiura, S., Usami, M., Kato, K., Kojima, H., Ohno, T., Saijo, K., Kato, M., Hayashi, M., & Ohno, Y.
- Affiliations
- KOSÉ (Japan) (JP)
- Sunstar (Japan) (JP)
- Shiseido Group (Japan) (JP)
- Hoyu (Japan) (JP)
- Nippon Menard Cosmetic (Japan) (JP)
- RIKEN (JP)
- National Institute of Health Sciences (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Tani, N
- Venue
- Toxicology in Vitro
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1999-02
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 175-187
- ISSN
- 0887-2333 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2090955424
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Toxicology in Vitro (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Contact Dermatitis and Allergies
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotoxicology and immune responses
- Keywords
- eye irritation, Draize test, SIRC cells, cytotoxicity, neutral red uptake assay, cosmetic ingredients, interlaboratory reproducibility, EC50, alternative test methods, dyes
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