Evidence for hormesis in mutagenicity dose-response relationships

Mutation Research - Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis

Volumn 726, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 91-97

  Calabrese, Edward J ^a   Stanek, Edward J ^a   Nascarella, Marc A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^b GRADIENT   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive response; Dose response; Hormetic; J shaped; Mutagen; U shaped

Indexed keywords

AMES TEST; ARTICLE; BASE PAIRING; FRAMESHIFT MUTATION; HORMESIS; MUTAGENICITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FRAMESHIFT MUTATION; HORMESIS; MUTAGENICITY TESTS; MUTAGENS; SALMONELLA TYPHIMURIUM;

EID: 81055156830     PISSN: 13835718     EISSN: 18793592     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2011.04.006     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Mortelmans K., Haworth S., Lawlor T., Speck W., Tainer B., Zeiger E. Salmonella mutagenicity tests. II. Results from the testing of 270 chemicals. Environ. Mutagen. 1986, 8:1-119.
2. Zeiger E., Anderson B., Haworth S., Lawlor T., Mortelmans K. Salmonella mutagenicity tests. IV. Results from the testing of 300 chemicals. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 1988, 11:1-158.
3. Zeiger E., Anderson B., Haworth S., Lawlor T., Mortelmans K., Speck W. Salmonella mutagenicity tests. III. Results from the testing of 255 chemicals. Environ. Mutagen. 1987, 9:1-110.
4. BEAR I Committee Report-National Academy of Sciences, The Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Report to the Public 1956, NAS/NRC, Washington, DC.
5. National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRPM) Somatic radiation dose for the general population. Science 1960, 131:482-486.
6. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Safe Drinking Water Committee Drinking Water and Health 1977, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
7. Calabrese E.J. The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment. Arch. Toxicol. 2009, 83:203-225.
8. Calabrese E.J. Getting the dose-response wrong: why hormesis became marginalized and the threshold model accepted. Arch. Toxicol. 2009, 83:227-247.
9. Cuttler J.M., Pollycove M. Nuclear energy and health: and the benefits of low-dose radiation hormesis. Dose Response 2009, 7:52-89.
10. Calabrese E.J. Paradigm lost, paradigm found: the re-emergence of hormesis as a fundamental dose response model in the toxicological sciences. Environ. Pollut. 2005, 138:379-412.
11. Calabrese E.J. Threshold - dose-response model - RIP: 1911 to 2006. BioEssays 2007, 29:686-688.
12. Calabrese E.J. Hormesis: why it is important to toxicology and toxicologists. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2008, 27:1451-1474.
13. Scott B.R. It's time for a new low-dose-radiation risk assessment paradigm-one that acknowledges hormesis. Dose Response 2008, 6:333-351.
14. Scott B.R. Low-dose-radiation stimulated chemical and biological protection against lung cancer. Dose Response 2008, 6:299-318.
15. Redpath J.L. Radiation-induced neoplastic transformation in vitro, hormesis and risk assessment. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2006, 47:403-1403.
16. Redpath J.L. Nonlinear response for neoplastic transformation following low doses of low let radiation. Nonlinear Biol. Toxicol. Med. 2005, 3:113-124.
17. Calabrese E.J., Baldwin L.A. Toxicology rethinks its central belief. Nature 2003, 421:691-692.
18. Calabrese E.J., Baldwin L.A. Hormesis: U-shaped dose responses and their centrality in toxicology. Trends Pharm. Sci. 2001, 22:285-291.
19. Calabrese E.J., Baldwin L.A. Chemical hormesis: its historical foundations as a biological hypothesis. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 2000, 19:2-31.
20. Calabrese E.J., Baldwin L.A. The marginalization of hormesis. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 2000, 19:32-40.
21. Calabrese E.J., Baldwin L.A. Radiation hormesis: its historical foundations as a biological hypothesis. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 2000, 19:41-75.
22. Calabrese E.J., Baldwin L.A. Radiation hormesis: the demise of a legitimate hypothesis. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 2000, 19:76-84.
23. Calabrese E.J., Baldwin L.A. Tales of two similar hypotheses: the rise and fall of chemical and radiation hormesis. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 2000, 19:85-97.
24. Calabrese E.J. Historical blunders: how toxicology got the dose-response relationship half right. Cell. Mol. Biol. 2005, 51:643-654.
25. Hoffmann G.R. A perspective on the scientific, philosophical, and policy dimensions of hormesis. Dose Response 2009, 7:1-51.
26. Son T.G, Camandola S., Mattson M.P. Hormetic dietary phytochemicals. Neuromol. Med. 2008, 10:236-246.
27. Calabrese E.J., Blain R.B. Hormesis and plant biology. Environ. Pollut. 2009, 157:42-48.
28. Calabrese E.J., Blain R. The occurrence of hormetic dose responses in the toxicological literature, the hormesis database: an overview. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2005, 202:289-301.
29. Calabrese E.J., Baldwin L.A. The frequency of U-shaped dose-responses in the toxicological literature. Toxicol. Sci. 2001, 62:330-338.
30. Calabrese E.J., Baldwin L.A. The hormetic dose response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology. Toxicol. Sci. 2003, 71:246-250.
31. Calabrese E.J., Staudenmayer J.W., Stanek E.J. Drug development and hormesis: changing conceptual understanding of the dose response creates new challenges and opportunities for more effective drugs. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 2006, 9:117-123.
32. Calabrese E.J., Staudenmayer J.W., Stanek E.J., Hoffmann G.R. Hormesis outperforms threshold model in NCI anti-tumor drug screening data. Toxicol. Sci. 2006, 94:368-378.
33. Calabrese E.J., Hoffmann G.R., Stanek E.J., Nascarella M.A. Hormesis in high-throughput screening of antibacterial compounds in E. coli. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 2010, 29:667-677.
34. Calabrese E.J., Stanek E.J., Nascarella M.A., Hoffmann G.R. Hormesis predicts low-dose responses better than threshold models. Int. J. Toxicol. 2008, 27:369-378.
35. Margolin B.H., Kaplan N., Zeiger E. Statistical analysis of the Ames Salmonella/Microsome Test. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1981, 78:3779-3783.
36. Drake J.W., Abrahamson S., Crow J.F., Hollaender A., Lederberg S., Legator M.S., Neel J.V., Shaw M.W., Sutton E.E., von Borstel R.C., Zimmering S., de Serres F.J. Environmental mutagenic hazards. Science 1975, 187:503-514.
37. Freese E. Thresholds in toxic, teratogenic, mutagenic, and carcinogenic effects. Environ. Health Perspect. 1973, 6:171-178.
38. Pillai S.P., Shankel D.M. Effects of antimutagens on development of drug/antibiotic resistance in microorganisms. Mut. Res. 1998, 402:139-150.
39. Pillai S.P., Shankel D.M. Polyamines and their potential to be antimutagens. Mut. Res. 1997, 377:217-224.
40. 6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferases and highly sensitive to mutagenic alkylating agents. Mut. Res. 1997, 381:15-24.
41. Vorobjeva L.I., Khodjaev E.Y., Cherdinceva T.A. The study of induced antimutagenesis of propionic acid bacteria. J. Microbiol. Methods 1996, 24:249-258.
42. Vorobjeva L.I., Khodjaev E.Y., Cherdinceva T.A. Antimutagenic and reactivative activities of dairy propionibacteria. LAIT 1995, 75:473-487.