Linear-No-Threshold Default Assumptions for Noncancer and Nongenotoxic Cancer Risks: A Mathematical and Biological Critique

Risk Analysis

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 589-604

  Bogen, Kenneth T ^a  

^a EXPONENT INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Dose response; Genotoxic carcinogens; Heterogeneity; Human; Linearity; Low dose; Modeling; Noncarcinogens; Nonlinearity; Susceptibility; Variability

Indexed keywords

BIRDS; CARCINOGENS; CELL DEATH; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; MODELS;

DOSE RESPONSE; GENOTOXIC; HETEROGENEITY; HUMAN; LINEARITY; LOW DOSE; NONCARCINOGENS; NONLINEARITY; VARIABILITY;

RISK PERCEPTION;

APOPTOSIS; CANCER; CARCINOGEN; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP; GENOTOXICITY; HETEROGENEITY; LINEARITY; NONLINEARITY; NUMERICAL MODEL; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; THRESHOLD; TOXICITY;

CARCINOGEN;

APOPTOSIS; CARCINOGENESIS; CELL LINE; CHEMICALLY INDUCED; DOSE RESPONSE; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; NEOPLASM; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

APOPTOSIS; CARCINOGENESIS; CARCINOGENS; CELL LINE; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NEOPLASMS; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

EID: 84938723476     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12460     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes. EPA/630/P-02/002F, December 2002. U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, 2002.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001F, March 2005. U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, 2005.
3. National Research Council (NRC). Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2009.
4. Crump KS, Hoel DG, Langley CH, Peto R. Fundamental carcinogenic processes and their implications for low dose risk assessment. Cancer Research, 1976; 36(9 pt.1):2973-2979.
5. Lutz WK. Dose-response relationships in chemical carcinogenesis: From DNA adducts to tumor incidence. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 1990; 283:151-156.
6. Lutz WK. Susceptibility differences in chemical carcinogenesis linearize the dose-response relationship: Threshold doses can be defined only for individuals. Mutation Research, 2001; 482(1-2):71-76.
7. Slikker W, Jr, Andersen ME, Bogdanffy MS, Bus JS, Cohen SD, Conolly RB, David RM, Doerrer NG, Dorman DC, Gaylor DW, Hattis D, Rogers JM, Woodrow Setzer R, Swenberg JA, Wallace K. Dose-dependent transitions in mechanisms of toxicity: Case studies. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 2004; 201(3):226-294.
8. Hoshi M, Morimura K, Wanibuchi H, Wei M, Okochi E, Ushijima T, Takaoka K, Fukushima S. No-observed effect levels for carcinogenicity and for in vivo mutagenicity of a genotoxic carcinogen. Toxicological Sciences, 2004; 81(2):273-279.
9. Swenberg JA, Fryar-Tita E, Jeong YC, Boysen G, Starr T, Walker VE, Albertini RJ. Biomarkers in toxicology and risk assessment: Informing critical dose response assessment relationships. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 2008; 21(1):253-265.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Perchlorate and Perchlorate Salts. Last updated on Aug 9, 2012 (Section II, Carcinogenicity Assessment for Lifetime Exposure, last revised 02/18/2005). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, 2012. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/subst/1007.htm
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Toxicological Review of Chloroform (CAS No. 67-66-3) in Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). EPA/635/R-01/001, October 2001. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, 2001. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0025tr.pdf.
12. Bailey GS, Reddy AP, Pereira CB, Harttig U, Baird W, Spitsbergen JM, Hendricks JD, Orner GA, Williams DE, Swenberg JA. Non-linear cancer response at ultra-low dose: A 40, 800-animal ED001 tumor and biomarker study. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 2009; 22(7):1264-1276.
13. Bogen KT. Mechanistic models fit to ED001 data on >40000 trout exposed to dibenzo[a, l]pyrene indicate mutations do not drive increased tumor risk. Dose Response, in press. doi:10.2203/dose-response.13-019.Bogen.
14. Zeise L, Wilson R, Crouch EAC. Dose-response relationships for carcinogens: A review. Environmental Health Perspectives, 1987; 73:259-308.
15. Zeger SL, Thomas D, Dominici F, Samet JM, Schwartz J, Dockery D, Cohen A. Exposure measurement error in time-series studies of air pollution: Concepts and consequences. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2000; 108(5):419-426.
16. Rhomberg LR, Goodman JE, Haber LT, Dourson M, Andersen ME, Klaunig JE, Meek B, Price PS, McClellan RO, Cohen SM. Linear low-dose extrapolation for noncancer health effects is the exception, not the rule. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2011; 41(1):1-19.
17. Dourson M, Haber L. Linear low-dose extrapolations. Pp. 615-635 in Hsu C-H, Stedeford T (eds). Cancer Risk Assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
18. Wolfram Research. Wolfram Mathematica 9 Documentation Center. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Research, Inc., 2014. Available at: http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/guide/Mathematica.html.
19. Lutz WK. Quantitative evaluation of DNA binding data for risk estimation and for classification of direct and indirect carcinogens. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, 1986; 112:85-91.
20. Crawford M, Wilson R. Low-dose linearity: The rule or the exception? Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 1996; 2(2):305-330.
21. Lutz WK. Dose-response relationships in chemical carcinogenesis: From DNA adducts to tumor incidence. Pp. 151-156 in Witmer CM, Snyder RR, Jollow DJ, Kalf GF, Kocsis JJ, Sipes IG (eds). Biological Reactive Intermediates IV: Molecular and Cellular Effects and Their Impact on Human Health. New York: Plenum Press, 1991.
22. Lutz WK. Dose-response relationships in chemical carcinogenesis reflect differences in individual susceptibility. Consequences for cancer risk assessment, extrapolation, and prevention. Human and Experimental Toxicology, 1999; 18(12):707-712.
23. Lutz WK. A true threshold dose in chemical carcinogenesis cannot be defined for a population, irrespective of the mode of action. Human and Experimental Toxicology, 2000; 19(10):566-568.
24. Johnson NL, Kotz S, Balakrishnan N. Continuous Univariate Distributions, Vol. 1, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994, p. 163.
25. Elmore S. Apoptosis: A review of programmed cell death. Toxicologic Pathology, 2007; 35:495-516.
26. Orrenius S, Nicotera P, Zhivotovsky B. Cell death mechanisms and their implications in toxicology. Toxicological Sciences, 2011; 119(1):3-19.
27. Amaral JD1, Xavier JM, Steer CJ, Rodrigues CM. The role of p53 in apoptosis. Discovery in Medicine, 2010; 9(45):145-152.
28. Gonzalvez F1, Lawrence D, Yang B, Yee S, Pitti R, Marsters S, Pham VC, Stephan JP, Lill J, Ashkenazi A. TRAF2 Sets a threshold for extrinsic apoptosis by tagging caspase-8 with a ubiquitin shutoff timer. Molecular Cell, 2012; 48(6):888-899.
29. Kracikova M, Akiri G, George A, Sachidanandam R, Aaronson SA. A threshold mechanism mediates p53 cell fate decision between growth arrest and apoptosis. Cell Death and Differentiation, 2013; 20(4):576-588.
30. Dodmane PR, Arnold LL, Kakiuchi-Kiyota S, Qiu F, Liu X, Rennard SI, Cohen SM. Cytotoxicity and gene expression changes induced by inorganic and organic trivalent arsenicals in human cells. Toxicology, 2013; 312:18-29.
31. Komissarova EV, Rossman TG. Arsenite induced poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation of tumor suppressor P53 in human skin keratinocytes as a possible mechanism for carcinogenesis associated with arsenic exposure. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 2010; 243(3):399-404.
32. Marples B, Joiner MC. The response of Chinese hamster V79 cells to low radiation doses: Evidence of Enhanced sensitivity of the whole cell population. Radiation Research, 1993; 153:41-51.
33. Joiner MC, Lambin P, Malaise EP, Robson T, Arrand JE, Skov KA, Marples B. Hypersensitivity to very-low single radiation doses: Its relationship to the adaptive response and induced radioresistance. Mutation Research, 1996; 358:171-183.
34. Enns L, Bogen KT, Wizniak J, Murtha AD, Weinfeld M. Low dose radiation hypersensitivity is associated with p53-dependent apoptosis. Molecular Cancer Research, 2004; 2:557-566.
35. Wu CH, Tseng YS, Kao YT, Sheu HM, Liu HS. Low concentration of arsenic-induced aberrant mitosis in keratinocytes through E2F1 transcriptionally regulated Aurora-A. Toxicological Sciences, 2013; 132(1):43-52.
36. Crosio C, Fimia GM, Loury R, Kimura M, Okano Y, Zhou H, Sen S, Allis CD, Sassone-Corsi P. Mitotic phosphorylation of histone H3: Spatio-temporal regulation by mammalian Aurora kinases. Molecular and Cell Biology, 2002; 22(3):874-885.
37. Marumoto T, Zhang D, Saya H. Aurora-A-A guardian of poles. Nature Reviews Cancer, 2005; 5(1):42-50.
38. Lehman TA, Modali R, Boukamp P, Stanek J, Bennett WP, Welsh JA, Metcalf RA, Stampfer MR, Fusenig N, Rogan EM. p53 mutations in human immortalized epithelial cell lines. Carcinogenesis, 1993; 14(5):833-839.
39. Slob W, Setzer RW. Shape and steepness of toxicological dose-response relationships of continuous endpoints. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2014; 44(3):270-297.
40. Zhang Q, Bhattacharya S, Andersen ME. Ultrasensitive response motifs: Basic amplifiers in molecular signalling networks. Open Biology, 2013; 3:130031.
41. Zhang Q, Bhattacharya S, Conolly RB, Clewell III HJ, Kaminsky NE, Andersen ME. Molecular signaling network motifs provide a mechanistic basis for cellular threshold responses. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2014; 122(12):1261-1270.
42. Valiathan C, McFaline JL, Samson LD. A rapid survival assay to measure drug-induced cytotoxicity and cell cycle effects. DNA Repair (Amsterdam), 2012; 11(1):92-98.
43. Lehman EL, D'Abrera HJM. Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks. San Francisco, CA: Holden-Day Inc., 1975.