A method to evaluate hormesis in nanoparticle dose-responses

Dose-Response

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 344-354

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

Biphasic; High throughput; Hormesis; Nanoparticles; Toxicology

Indexed keywords

MULTI WALLED NANOTUBE; NANOPARTICLE; SUPEROXIDE DISMUTASE;

ARTICLE; CELL STIMULATION; CELL VIABILITY; CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HORMESIS; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; NANOTOXICOLOGY; NERVE CELL; PARTICLE SIZE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SCREENING TEST; TOXICITY TESTING; UMBILICAL VEIN ENDOTHELIAL CELL;

EID: 84865606677     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15593258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.10-025.Nascarella     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Becker H, Herzberg F, Schulte A, Kolossa-Gehring M. 2010. The carcinogenic potential of nanomaterials, their release from products and options for regulating them. Int J Hyg Environ Health. [Epub ahead of print]
2. Calabrese EJ and Baldwin LA. 1997. A quantitatively-based methodology for the evaluation of chemical hormesis. HERA 3(4), 545-554.
3. Calabrese EJ and Baldwin LA. 2002. Defining Hormesis. Hum. Exper. Toxicol. 21, 91-97.
4. Calabrese EJ and Blain R. 2005. The occurrence of hormetic dose responses in the toxicological literature, the hormesis database: An overview. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 202, 289-301.
5. Calabrese EJ and Blain R. 2011. The hormesis database: The occurrence of hormetic dose response in the toxicological literature. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 61:73-81.
6. Calabrese EJ, Stanek EJ, Nascarella MA, and Hoffman GR, 2008. Hormesis Predicts Low-Dose Responses Better Than Threshold Models. Internat. J. of Toxicol. 27, 369-378.
7. Calabrese EJ, Staudenmayer JW, Stanek EJ, Hoffmann GR, 2006. Hormesis outperforms threshold model in NCI anti-tumor drug screening data. Toxicol. Sci. 94, 368-378.
8. Crump KS, 1984. A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 4, 854-871.
9. 2. Environmental Pollution 157, 1157-1164
10. Guo YY, Zhang J, Zheng YF, Yang J, Zhu XQ. 2011. Cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of multi-wall carbon nanotubes on human umbilical vein endothelial cells in vitro. Mutat. Res. doi:10.1016/j.mrgentox.2011.01.014.
11. Holbeck SL, and Simon J, 2007. The FHCRC/NCI yeast anticancer drug screen, in: Nitiss, J.L., Heitman, J. (Eds.). Yeast as a Tool in Cancer Research, Springer, New York, pp. 347-374.
12. Iavicoli I, Calabrese EJ, and Nascarella MA. 2010 Exposure to Nanoparticles and Hormesis. Dose Response 8 (4), 501-17.
13. Jan E, Byrne S, Cuddihy M, Davies A, Volkov Y, Gun'ko YK, and Kotov NA. 2008. High-content screening as a universal tool for fingerprinting of cytotoxicity of nanoparticles. ACS Nano 2 (5):928-938.
14. th, 2009.
15. 50, toxic threshold, and the magnitude of stimulatory response in biphasic (hormetic) dose-responses. Reg. Toxicol. and Pharmacol. 54(3): 229-33.
16. Nascarella, M.A., Stanek III, E.J., Hoffmann, G.R., Calabrese, E.J. 2009. Quantification of hormesis in anticancer-agent dose-responses. Dose-Response 7(2): 160-171.
17. NCI (National Cancer Institute), 2008. Publicly available data from the NCI Yeast Anticancer Drug Screen. Available at: http://dtp.nci.nih.gov/yacds/nscsearch.html
18. Oberdorster, G., Oberdorster, E., Oberdorster, J. 2005. Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ. Health Perspect. 113 (7):823-839.
19. Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J. 2007. Concepts of nanoparticle dose metric and response metric. Environ Health Perspect. 115(6):A290.