Skin irritation, false positives and the local lymph node assay: A guideline issue?

Since the formal validation and regulatory acceptance of the local lymph node assay (LLNA) there have been commentaries suggesting that the irritant properties of substances can give rise to false positives. As toxicology aspires to progress rapidly towards the age of in vitro alternatives, it is of increasing importance that issues relating to assay selectivity and performance are understood fully, and that true false positive responses are distinguished clearly from those that are simply unpalatable. In the present review, we have focused on whether skin irritation per se is actually a direct cause of true false positive results in the LLNA. The body of published work has been examined critically and considered in relation to our current understanding of the mechanisms of skin irritation and skin sensitisation. From these analyses it is very clear that, of itself, skin irritation is not a cause of false positive results. The corollary is, therefore, that limiting test concentrations in the LLNA for the purpose of avoiding skin irritation may lead, unintentionally, to false negatives. Where a substance is a true false positive in the LLNA, the classic example being sodium lauryl sulphate, explanations for that positivity will have to reach beyond the seductive, but incorrect, recourse to its skin irritation potential.

► Is skin irritation potential really the cause of LLNA false positive results?
► Examination of the data shows that skin irritancy is not a general explanation.
► Thus, limiting LLNA test concentration in terms of irritant properties is unsound.