ArticleArchives of toxicology2023
Development of an in chemico high-throughput screening method for the identification of skin sensitization potential.
Article in Archives of toxicology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Secondary Pharmacology Targets for Pediatric Developmental Safety Assessment of New Drugs: Clinical Pharmacology Considerations.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Current and emerging new approach & methodologies for skin hazard assessment.Toxicological research · 2026Review
- Intranasal Administration of Isoeugenol Improves Memory Deficits in APP/PS1 Old Mice-A Role Beyond Nrf2 Activation?FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026Article
- Blocking the adverse outcome pathway of skin sensitization through aJournal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2025Article
- Targeting NRF2 With Isoeugenol: A Promising Small Molecule for Neurodegenerative, Metabolic, and Chronic Inflammatory Disorders.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2025Review
- Applications of Engineered Skin Tissue for Cosmetic Component and Toxicology Detection.Cell transplantationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
It is well established that chemical-peptide conjugation represents the molecular initiating event (MIE) in skin sensitization. This MIE has been successfully exploited in the development of in chemico peptide reactivity assays, with the Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) being validated as a screening tool for skin sensitization hazard as well as an OECD test guideline. This test relies on the use of a high-performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet detection method to quantify chemical-peptide conjugation through measurement of the depletion of two synthetic peptides containing lysine or cysteine residues, which is labor-intensive and time-consuming. To improve assay throughput, sensitivity, and accuracy, we have developed a spectrophotometric assay for skin sensitization potential based on MIE measurement-the ProtReact assay. ProtReact is also a cheaper, faster, simpler, and more accessible alternative for the DPRA, giving comparable results. A set of 106 chemicals was tested with ProtReact and the peptide depletion values compared with those reported for the DPRA. The predictive capacity of both assays was evaluated with human reference data. ProtReact and DPRA assays show similar predictive capacities for hazard identification (75% and 74%, respectively), although ProtReact showed a higher specificity (86% versus 74%, respectively) and lower sensitivity (69% versus 73%). Overall, the results show that ProtReact assay described here represents an efficient, economic, and accurate assay for the prediction of skin sensitization potential of chemical haptens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.