Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42347409›Full record

ArticleToxics2026

Validation of the Electrophilic Allergen Screening Assay for Detection of Key Event 1 of the Skin Sensitization Adverse Outcome Pathway.

Emily N Reinke, Elijah J Petersen, John D Gordon, Rick Uhl, Valerie H Adams, Diego Rua, Victor J Johnson, Gary R Burleson, Judy Strickland, Robert Gutierrez and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Emily N ReinkeInotiv, Inc., Morrisville, NC 27560, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0995-7792
Elijah J PetersenNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8215-9127
John D GordonU.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.
Rick UhlU.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.
Valerie H AdamsDefense Centers for Public Health-Aberdeen, Aberdeen, MD 21005, USA.ORCID 0009-0000-7272-5471
Diego RuaDRX2 Consulting LLC, Washington, DC 20001, USA.
Victor J JohnsonBurleson Research Technologies, Inc., Morrisville, NC 27506, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3471-6483
Gary R BurlesonBurleson Research Technologies, Inc., Morrisville, NC 27506, USA.
Judy StricklandInotiv, Inc., Morrisville, NC 27560, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4112-7484
Robert GutierrezNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3852-3619
Catherine S SprankleInotiv, Inc., Morrisville, NC 27560, USA.
Tripp LaPrattInotiv, Inc., Morrisville, NC 27560, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-7517-3825
David M LehmannIntertox, LLC, Seattle, WA 98101, USA.
Dori R GermolecNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, NC 27709, USA.
Nicole C KleinstreuerDivision of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7914-3682

Funding

Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives, National Institutes of Health GS-35F-393CANIEHS NIH HHS HHSN273201400017CNIEHS NIH HHS HHSN273201400020CNIEHS NIH HHS HHSN273201500010C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The electrophilic allergen screening assay (EASA) uses small-molecule probes as surrogates for skin proteins to measure hapten protein carrier complex formation, Key Event (KE) 1 in the adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization. Although multiple assays are accepted for this purpose, the EASA has higher throughput and needs less specialized equipment than other commonly used KE1 assays. This validation study assessed transferability of the EASA to naïve laboratories and within- and between-laboratory reproducibility. The predictive capacity of the assay in relation to reference data both from the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and, where available, human predictive patch tests, was estimated. The validation study was conducted using performance standards developed for methods that are under evaluation for inclusion in relevant test guidelines. The within- and between-laboratory reproducibility were cumulatively 96% and 85%, respectively. These scores exceeded the performance standard thresholds of 80%. Compared to reference LLNA data, the cumulative EASA results from the four laboratories had an overall sensitivity of 87%, specificity of 76%, and accuracy of 83%. The consensus results among the four laboratories had an overall sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 80%, and accuracy of 83%. For human reference data, the cumulative EASA results had an overall sensitivity of 81%, specificity of 76%, and accuracy of 70%. The EASA predicted sensitizers very well, although it had a slightly higher rate of misclassifying some negative test chemicals as positive with a specificity below the performance standards criterion of 80%. Our findings support further exploring use of the EASA in defined approaches to identify potential skin sensitizers.

Indexed as

adverse outcome pathwayhaptenationhapten-carrier formationKE1Key Event 1molecular initiating eventperformance standardsreproducibilityskin sensitizationtransferabilityvalidation

Identifiers

PMID42347409
PMCPMC13307052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.