Toxicological Sciences 71, 246-250 (2003)
Copyright © 2003 by the Society of Toxicology
RISK ASSESSMENT |
The Hormetic Dose-Response Model Is More Common than the Threshold Model in Toxicology
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003
ABSTRACT
The threshold dose-response model is widely viewed as the most dominant model in toxicology. The present study was designed to test the validity of the threshold model by assessing the responses of doses below the toxicological NOAEL (no observed adverse effect level) in relationship to the control response (i.e., unexposed group). Nearly 1800 doses below the NOAEL, from 664 dose-response relationships derived from a previously published database that satisfied a priori entry criteria, were evaluated. While the threshold model predicts a 1:1 ratio of responses "greater than" to "less than" the control response (i.e., a random distribution), a 2.5:1 ratio (i.e., 1171:464) was observed, reflecting 31% more responses above the control value than expected (p < 0.0001). The mean response (calculated as % control response) of doses below the NOAEL was 115.0% ± 1.5 standard error of the mean (SEM). These findings challenge the long-standing belief in the primacy of the threshold model in toxicology (and other areas of biology involving dose-response relationships) and provide strong support for the hormetic-like biphasic dose-response model characterized by a low-dose stimulation and a high-dose inhibition. These findings may affect numerous aspects of toxicological and biological/biomedical research related to dose-response relationships, including study design, risk assessment, as well as chemotherapeutic strategies.
Key Words: hormesis; biphasic; risk assessment; dose response; linear; threshold.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. P Hayes Adverse effects of nutritional inadequacy and excess: a hormetic model Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, August 1, 2008; 88(2): 578S - 581S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Elliott A case for deliberation in response to hormesis research Human and Experimental Toxicology, July 1, 2008; 27(7): 529 - 538. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. E Marchant Hormesis and toxic torts Human and Experimental Toxicology, February 1, 2008; 27(2): 97 - 107. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. R Scott Low-dose radiation risk extrapolation fallacy associated with the linear-no-threshold model Human and Experimental Toxicology, February 1, 2008; 27(2): 163 - 168. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Li, M. E Andersen, S. Heber, and Q. Zhang Non-monotonic dose-response relationship in steroid hormone receptor-mediated gene expression J. Mol. Endocrinol., May 1, 2007; 38(5): 569 - 585. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. J. Calabrese, J. W. Staudenmayer, E. J. Stanek III, and G. R. Hoffmann Hormesis Outperforms Threshold Model in National Cancer Institute Antitumor Drug Screening Database Toxicol. Sci., December 1, 2006; 94(2): 368 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Calabrese What is the purpose of a risk assessment? Human and Experimental Toxicology, January 1, 2006; 25(1): 1 - 1. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B D Beck An evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency definition of a risk assessment Human and Experimental Toxicology, January 1, 2006; 25(1): 3 - 5. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J M DeSesso and R E Watson The case for integrating low dose, beneficial responses into US EPA risk assessments Human and Experimental Toxicology, January 1, 2006; 25(1): 7 - 10. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L E Feinendegen and R D Neumann The issue of risk in complex adaptive systems: the case of low-dose radiation induced cancer Human and Experimental Toxicology, January 1, 2006; 25(1): 11 - 17. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J A Pickrell and F W Oehme Examining the risks and benefits of considering both the traditional dose-response and hormesis in arriving at an acceptable exposure level Human and Experimental Toxicology, January 1, 2006; 25(1): 23 - 27. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P F Ricci, L A Cox Jr, and T R MacDonald Science-policy in environmental and health risk assessment: if we cannot do without, can we do better? Human and Experimental Toxicology, January 1, 2006; 25(1): 29 - 43. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. E. Feinendegen and R. D. Neumann Physics must join with biology in better assessing risk from low-dose irradiation Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2005; 117(4): 346 - 356. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A Pickrell and F. W Oehme Examining the risks and benefits of replacing traditional dose-response with hormesis Human and Experimental Toxicology, May 1, 2005; 24(5): 259 - 264. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. F Ricci, L. A Cox Jr, and T. R MacDonald Precautionary principles: a jurisdiction-free framework for decision-making under risk Human and Experimental Toxicology, December 1, 2004; 23(12): 579 - 600. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. H. Lange Can Negatives Really be Positive: An Epidemiological Dilemma? Indoor and Built Environment, April 1, 2004; 13(2): 87 - 89. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. B. Conolly and W. K. Lutz Nonmonotonic Dose-Response Relationships: Mechanistic Basis, Kinetic Modeling, and Implications for Risk Assessment Toxicol. Sci., January 1, 2004; 77(1): 151 - 157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|