ReviewToxics2024
Chemical-Specific T Cell Tests Aim to Bridge a Gap in Skin Sensitization Evaluation.
Review in Toxics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of targetable epitope surfaces from the high resolution structure of the superantigen Staphylococcal enterotoxin L.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Contact Allergy to Ingredients of Hair Cosmetics Associated with Occupational and Non-Occupational Exposure-Trends from 1995 to 2020 in Central Europe, with or without Regulation.Contact dermatitis · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
T cell activation is the final key event (KE4) in the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) of skin sensitization. However, validated new approach methodologies (NAMs) for evaluating this step are missing. Accordingly, chemicals that activate an unusually high frequency of T cells, as does the most prevalent metal allergen nickel, are not yet identified in a regulatory context. T cell reactivity to chemical sensitizers might be especially relevant in real-life scenarios, where skin injury, co-exposure to irritants in chemical mixtures, or infections may trigger the heterologous innate immune stimulation necessary to induce adaptive T cell responses. Additionally, cross-reactivity, which underlies cross-allergies, can only be assessed by T cell tests. To date, several experimental T cell tests are available that use primary naïve and memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells from human blood. These include priming and lymphocyte proliferation tests and, most recently, activation-induced marker (AIM) assays. All approaches are challenged by chemical-mediated toxicity, inefficient or unknown generation of T cell epitopes, and a low throughput. Here, we summarize solutions and strategies to confirm in vitro T cell signals. Broader application and standardization are necessary to possibly define chemical applicability domains and to strengthen the role of T cell tests in regulatory risk assessment.
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.