How prevalent is chemical hormesis in the natural and experimental worlds?

Science of the Total Environment

Volumn 443, Issue , 2013, Pages 573-581

  Mushak, Paul ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Dose response models; Hormesis; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

RISK ANALYSIS;

BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; DATABASE EVALUATIONS; DOSE RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS; DOSE-RESPONSE MODELS; ECOLOGICAL TOXICANTS; FREQUENCY ESTIMATES; HEALTH POLICY; HORMESIS;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP; MODEL TEST; MODEL VALIDATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

BIOASSAY; CHEMICAL HORMESIS; CHEMICAL PARAMETERS; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; HORMESIS; HORMESIS FREQUENCY; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARDIZATION;

EID: 84870698820     PISSN: 00489697     EISSN: 18791026     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.11.028     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Calabrese E.J. The future of hormesis: where do we go from here?. Crit Rev Toxicol 2001, 31:637-648.
2. Calabrese E.J. Hormesis. A conversation with a critic. Environ Health Perspect 2009, 117:1339-1344.
3. Calabrese E.J. Calabrese responds. Environ Health Perspect 2010, 118:A153-A154. (Letter).
4. Calabrese E.J., Baldwin L.A. The frequency of U-shaped dose responses in the toxicological literature. Toxicol Sci 2001, 62:330-338.
5. Calabrese E.J., Baldwin L.A. Defining hormesis. Hum Exp Toxicol 2002, 21:91-97.
6. 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.
7. Calabrese E.J., Baldwin L.A. Hormesis at the National Toxicology Program (NTP): evidence of hormetic dose responses in NTP dose-range studies. Nonlinearity Biol Toxicol Med 2003, 1:455-467.
8. 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.
9. Calabrese E.J., Blain R.B. The hormesis database: The occurrence of hormetic dose-responses in the toxicological literature. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2011, 61:73-81.
10. Calabrese E.J., Nascarella M.A. Tumor resistance explained by hormesis. Dose Response 2010, 8:80-82.
11. Calabrese E.J., Bachmann K.A., Bailer A.J., Bolger P.M., Borak J., Cai L., et al. Biological stress response terminology: integrating the concepts of adaptive response and preconditioning stress within a hormetic dose-response framework. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2007, 222:122-128.
12. Calabrese E.J., Stanek E.J., Nascarella M.A. A detailed re-assessment supports the conclusion of the Calabrese et al. (2011) paper that hormesis is commonly observed in the Ames assay. Mut Res Gen Toxicol. Environment 2012, 747:157. (Letter).
13. Calabrese E.J., Stanek E.J., Nascarella M.A. Evidence for hormesis in mutagenicity dose-response relationships. Mut Res Gen Toxicol Env Mut 2011, 726:91-97.
14. 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.
15. Calabrese E.J., Staudenmayer J.W., Stanek E.J., Hoffmann G.R. Hormesis and high-throughput studies: Crump's analysis lacks credibility. Toxicol Sci 2007, 98:602-603. (Letter).
16. Calabrese E.J., Staudenmayer J.W., Stanek E.J., Hoffmann G.R. Hormesis outperforms threshold model in NCI antitumor drug screening data. Toxicol Sci 2006, 94:368-378.
17. Crump K. Evaluating the evidence for hormesis: a statistical perspective. Crit Rev Toxicol 2001, 31:246-250.
18. Crump K.S. Limitations in the National Cancer Institute antitumor drug screening database for evaluating hormesis. Toxicol Sci 2007, 98:599-601. (Letter).
19. Davis J.M., Svendsgaard D.J. Nonmonotonic dose-response relationships in toxicological studies. Biological effects of low level exposures: dose-response relationships 1994, CRC Press. E.J. Calabrese (Ed.).
20. Elliott K.C. A case for deliberation in response to hormesis research. Hum Exp Toxicol 2008, 27:529-538.
21. Elliott K.C. Is a little pollution good for you? Incorporating societal values in environmental research. Chapter 2: the hormesis case 2011, Oxford University Press.
22. Fagin D. The learning curve. Nature 2012, 490:462-465.
23. Kendig E.L., Le H.H., Belcher S.M. Defining hormesis: evaluation of a complex concentration response phenomenon. Int J Toxicol 2010, 29:235-246.
24. Kitchin K.T., Drane J.W. A critique of the use of hormesis in risk assessment. Hum Exp Toxicol 2005, 24:249-253.
25. Hormesis: a revolution in biology, toxicology, and medicine 2009, Humana Press, New York. M.P. Mattson, E.J. Calabrese (Eds.).
26. Meyers J.P., Zoeller R.T., vom Saal F.S. A clash of old and new scientific concepts in toxicity, with important implications for public health. Environ Health Perspect 2009, 117:1652-1655.
27. Mushak P. Limits to chemical hormesis as a dose-response model in health risk assessment. Sci Total Environ in press.
28. Mushak P. Hormesis and its place in nonmonotonic dose-response relationships. Some scientific reality checks. Environ Health Perspect 2007, 115:500-506.
29. Mushak P. Ad hoc and fast forward: the science of hormesis growth and development. Environ Health Perspect 2009, 117:1333-1338.
30. Mushak P. Hormesis: a brief reply to an advocate. Environ Health Perspect 2010, 118:A153. (Letter).
31. Shrader-Frechette K. Conceptual analysis and special-interest science: toxicology and the case of Edward Calabrese. Synthese 2010, 177:449-469.
32. Vandenberg L.N., Colborn T., Hayes T.B., Heindel J.J., Jacobs D.R., Lee D.H., et al. Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses. Endocrin Rev 2012, 33:378-455.
33. vom Saal F.S. Hormesis controversy. Environ Sci Technol 2007, 41:3. (Letter).
34. vom Saal F.S., Akingbemi B.T., Belcher S.M., Birnbaum L.S., Crain D.A., Farabollini F., et al. Chapel Hill expert panel consensus statement: integration of mechanisms effects in animals, and potential to impact human health at current levels of exposure. Reprod Toxicol 2007, 24:199-224.
35. Weltje L., vom Saal F.S., Oehlmann J. Reproductive stimulation by low doses of xenoestrogens contrasts with the view of hormesis as an adaptive response. Hum Exp Toxicol 2005, 24:431-437.
36. Yauch R.L., Dijkgraaf GJP, Alicke B., Januario T., Ahn C.P., Holcomb T., et al. Smoothened mutation confers resistance to a hedgehog pathway inhibitor in medulloblastoma. Science 2009, 326:572-574.
37. Zeiger E., Hoffmann G.R. An illusion of hormesis in the Ames test: statistical evidence is not equivalent to biological significance. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Mutagen 2012, 746(1):89-93.