Dose-incidence relationships derived from superposition of distributions of individual susceptibility on mechanism-based dose responses for biological effects

Toxicological Sciences

Volumn 90, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 33-38

  Lutz, Werner K ^a   Lutz, Roman W ^b   Andersen, Melvin E ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

^b ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c CIIT CENTERS FOR HEALTH RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Dose response relationship; Logarithm; Models; Tolerance distribution

Indexed keywords

GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR; HORMONE; LIGAND; MITOGENIC AGENT; PROTEIN; TOXIC SUBSTANCE;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY; CELL DIVISION; DNA ADDUCT; DOSE CALCULATION; DOSE RESPONSE; HUMAN; LINEAR SYSTEM; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MICHAELIS MENTEN KINETICS; MITOSIS; PHYSICAL TOLERANCE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RECEPTOR OCCUPANCY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION; TOXICITY TESTING;

DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; LOGISTIC MODELS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; XENOBIOTICS;

EID: 33144474329     PISSN: 10966080     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfj026     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Albert, R. E., and Altshuler, B. (1976). Assessment of environmental carcinogen risks in terms of life shortening. Environ. Health Perspect. 13, 91-94.
2. Andersen, M. E., Lutz, R. W., Liao, K. H., and Lutz, W. K. (2005). Doseincidence modeling: Consequences of linking quantal measures of response to depletion of critical tissue targets. Toxicol. Sci.. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfj024.
3. Andersen, M. E., Yang, R. S., French, C. T., Chubb, L. S., and Dennison, J. E. (2002). Molecular circuits, biological switches, and nonlinear dose-response relationships. Environ. Health Perspect. 110(Suppl. 6), 971-978.
4. Gaylor, D.W., and Kodell, R. L. (2002). A procedure for developing risk-based reference doses. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 35, 137-141.
5. Gaylor, D. W., and Slikker, W. J. (1990). Risk assessment for neurotoxic effects. Neurotoxicology 11, 211-218.
6. Hardman, J. G., and Limbird, L. E., Eds. (2001). Goodman and Gilman's the Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. McGraw-Hill, New York.
7. Haseman, J. K., and Hoel, D. G. (1979). Statistical design of toxicity assays: Role of genetic structure of test animal population. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 5, 89-101.
8. Hattis, D. (1996). Human interindividual variability in susceptibility to toxic effects: From annoying detail to a central determinant of risk. Toxicology 111, 5-14.
9. Hattis, D., Banati, P., Goble, R., and Burmaster, D. E. (1999). Human interindividual variability in parameters related to health risks. Risk Anal. 19, 711-726.
10. Hattis, D., Erdreich, L., and Ballew, M. (1987). Human variability in susceptibility to toxic chemicals -a preliminary analysis of pharmacokinetic data from normal volunteers. Risk Anal. 7, 415-426.
11. Hattis, D., and Silver, K. (1994). Human interindividual variability - A major source of uncertainty in assessing risks for noncancer health effects. Risk Anal. 14, 421-431.
12. Klaassen, C. D., Ed. (2001). Casarett and Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. McGraw-Hill, New York.
13. Koch, A. L. (1966). The logarithm in biology I. Mechanisms generating the log-normal distribution exactly. J. Theor. Biol. 12, 276-290.
14. Koch, A. L. (1969). The logarithm in biology II. Distributions simulating the log-normal. J. Theor. Biol. 23, 251-268.
15. Limpert, E., Stahel, W. A., and Abbt, M. (2001). Log-normal distributions across the sciences: Keys and clues. Bioscience 51, 341-352.
16. Lutz, W. K. (2001). Susceptibility differences in chemical carcinogenesis linearize the dose-response relationship: Threshold doses can be defined only for individuals. Mutat. Res. 482, 71-76.
17. Lutz, W. K. (2002). Differences in individual susceptibility to toxic effects of chemicals determine the dose-response relationship and consequences of setting exposure standards. Toxicol. Lett. 126, 155-158.
18. Mantel, N., and Bryan, W. R. (1961). "Safety" testing of carcinogenic agents. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 27, 455-470.
19. Slob, W. (1999). Thresholds in toxicology and risk assessment. Int. J. Toxicol. 18, 259-268.