Skip Navigation


ToxSci Advance Access originally published online on May 29, 2007
Toxicological Sciences 2007 98(2):599-601; doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfm135
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
98/2/599    most recent
kfm135v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Crump, K. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Crump, K. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Toxicology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Limitations in the National Cancer Institute Antitumor Drug Screening Database for Evaluating Hormesis

Kenny S. Crump1

Environ Corporation, 602 East Georgia Avenue, Ruston, LA 71270

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. Fax: (318) 325-4889. E-mail: KennyCrump@email.com.

Received February 9, 2007; accepted March 5, 2007

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Calabrese et al. (2006)Go presented an analysis of data from the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) yeast screening database that appeared to demonstrate hormesis. However, their method of analysis was biased toward finding hormesis even if none was present. Although Calabrese et al. maintained that this bias was not sufficient to explain their results, in reaching this conclusion they assumed that when the original data were summarized, the responses in exposed wells were normalized by dividing by the average of the responses in the eight control wells. Alternatively (and not implausibly), if the responses in exposed wells were first divided by responses in individual control wells and the ratios averaged, results remarkably similar to those obtained by Calabrese et al. could have occurred, even if hormesis were not present. Unfortunately, the original data were lost and there is apparently no way to determine which method was used to summarize them . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum Exp ToxicolHome page
K. Elliott
A case for deliberation in response to hormesis research
Human and Experimental Toxicology, July 1, 2008; 27(7): 529 - 538.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Toxicol SciHome page
O.-N. Bae, K.-M. Lim, J.-Y. Han, B.-I. Jung, J.-Y. Lee, J.-Y. Noh, S.-M. Chung, M.-Y. Lee, J.-Y. Lee, and J.-H. Chung
U-shaped Dose Response in Vasomotor Tone: A Mixed Result of Heterogenic Response of Multiple Cells to Xenobiotics
Toxicol. Sci., May 1, 2008; 103(1): 181 - 190.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]