Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 31, 2025

An In Vitro Skin Irritation Test SIT using the EpiDerm Reconstructed Human Epidermal RHE Model
Published on: July 13, 2009
How to resolve inconclusive predictions from defined approaches for skin sensitisation in OECD Guideline No. 497
Donna S Macmillan1, Martyn L Chilton2, Yuan Gao3
1Humane Society International, 1255 23rd St. NW, Suite 450. Washington, DC, 20037, USA.
Abstract:
In June 2021 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development published Guideline No. 497 on Defined Approaches for Skin Sensitisation (DASS GL). There are two DAs published, known as the 2o3 and the ITS. The 2o3 uses two concordant results from either the DPRA, KeratinoSens™, or the h-CLAT assays to predict hazard (sensitiser/non-sensitiser). The ITS applies a score to results from the DPRA, the h-CLAT and an in silico model to predict United Nations Globally Harmonized System (GHS) sub-categories (1A/1B/Not Classified). The ITS can use Derek Nexus as the in silico model (known as ITSv1) or use OECD QSAR Toolbox (known as ITSv2). As limitations of the individual in chemico/in vitro assays and in silico predictions are carried through to the DAs, inconclusive predictions are possible for chemicals with results in the borderline range, and chemicals with out of domain results. However, these inconclusive predictions can be resolved by applying a weight of evidence approach. Herein, four case studies are presented, each 'inconclusive' for skin sensitisation potential according to both DAs. A weight of evidence approach was applied to each using a robust scientific approach to provide a conclusive prediction, where possible, based on several additional, non-animal lines of evidence.

