Therefore test results for only four of the seven sensitisers were available (non sensitisers were not tested). The PPRA encountered solubility check details issues with tetramethyl thiuram disulphide, but test results were obtained for the remaining nine chemicals. Potency predictions for all ten chemicals were obtained from the other five test methods. With the exception of the strong sensitiser lauryl gallate being predicted as ‘NS-weak’ in SenCeeTox,

potency predictions were either correct or differed to the reference result by only one category in all cases for Sens-IS, KeratinoSens™, VitoSens and SenCeeTox. No bias towards under- or over-prediction of potency was observed. The DPRA and the PPRA use fewer potency categories than the LLNA. The six buy ABT-199 substances with LLNA reference

results of moderate, strong and extreme were all classified by the DPRA as having ‘high’ reactivity, phenyl benzoate (classified as weak by the LLNA) as ‘moderate’ and the three non-sensitisers as ‘minimal’. The PPRA classified LLNA extreme and strong sensitisers as highly reactive, the LLNA moderate sensitisers as reactive, and the LLNA weak and non-sensitisers as minimally reactive. Human skin sensitisation data are available for six of the seven sensitising substances, which were all assigned as human potency class ‘2’ and ‘3’ (Basketter et al., 2014). This correlated well with their classification based on LLNA results – which ranged from weak to strong – with only minor differences for cinnamal and phenyl benzoate. Consequently, the

potency prediction from the test methods broadly matched the human potency classes in a similar manner as described Thymidine kinase above for the LLNA. At the time of the workshop the h-CLAT had already been proposed for potency predictions (Nukada et al., 2012), but it was not proposed by the test developer for this application at the time of evaluation. The evaluation of all test methods, except the PPRA (because method standardisation was finalised only after evaluation had commenced), was performed according to the criteria detailed above and is presented in Table 4. In summary, the methods were characterised by the test system (cell line – 9 methods; 3D tissue – 3; primary cells – 2; synthetic peptide – 1) and the number of skin sensitisation biomarkers (specific or non-specific) measured. Regarding conduct of the methods and the data analysis, SOP and prediction models were – unless they were considered as confidential – provided by the test developers. As an indicator of the robustness of the prediction model, the number of chemicals used to develop the model was also captured. For most methods prediction models were based on more than 25 substances, which was considered as sufficient. Similarly, the number of test concentrations used was considered as an indicator for the potential generation of concentration–response data.