Generalized concentration addition: a method for examining mixtures containing partial agonists.

Environmentally relevant toxic exposures often consist of simultaneous exposure to multiple agents. Methods to predict the expected outcome of such combinations are critical both to risk assessment and to an accurate judgment of whether combinations are synergistic or antagonistic. Concentration addition (CA) has commonly been used to assess the presence of synergy or antagonism in combinations of similarly acting chemicals, and to predict effects of combinations of such agents. CA has the advantage of clear graphical interpretation: Curves of constant joint effect (isoboles) must be negatively sloped straight lines if the mixture is concentration additive. However, CA cannot be directly used to assess combinations that include partial agonists, although such agents are of considerable interest. Here, we propose a natural extension of CA to a functional form that may be applied to mixtures including full agonists and partial agonists. This extended definition, for which we suggest the term "generalized concentration addition," encompasses linear isoboles with slopes of any sign. We apply this approach to the simple example of agents with dose-response relationships described by Hill functions with slope parameter n=1. The resulting isoboles are in all cases linear, with negative, zero and positive slopes. Using simple mechanistic models of ligand-receptor systems, we show that the same isobole pattern and joint effects are generated by modeled combinations of full and partial agonists. Special cases include combinations of two full agonists and a full agonist plus a competitive antagonist.

[1]  W. Greco,et al.  The search for synergy: a critical review from a response surface perspective. , 1995, Pharmacological reviews.

[2]  U. Kristiansen,et al.  Irritation of the upper airways from mixtures of cumene and n-propanol. Mechanisms and their consequences for setting industrial exposure limits. , 1988 .

[3]  D. Jenkinson,et al.  International Union of Pharmacology Committee on Receptor Nomenclature and Drug Classification. IX. Recommendations on terms and symbols in quantitative pharmacology. , 1995, Pharmacological reviews.

[4]  Nelly van der Hoeven,et al.  Current issues in statistics and models for ecotoxicological risk assessment. , 2004 .

[5]  J. V. van Rossum,et al.  A theoretical basis of molecular pharmacology. I. Interactions of one or two compounds with one receptor system. , 1956, Arzneimittel-Forschung.

[6]  A. Brouwer,et al.  Species-specific antagonism of Ah receptor action by 2,2',5,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl. , 1993 .

[7]  C. I. Bliss THE TOXICITY OF POISONS APPLIED JOINTLY1 , 1939 .

[8]  Terrence P. Kenakin,et al.  A Pharmacologic Analysis of Drug-Receptor Interaction , 1987 .

[9]  T. Kenakin,et al.  The ligand paradox between affinity and efficacy: can you be there and not make a difference? , 2002, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[10]  Joseph R. DiPalma,et al.  Principles of Drug Action: The Basis of Pharmacology , 1968 .

[11]  E. J. Ariëns Molecular pharmacolōgy : the mode of action of biologically active compounds , 1964 .

[12]  C. Tohyama,et al.  The 2005 World Health Organization reevaluation of human and Mammalian toxic equivalency factors for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. , 2006, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[13]  Nigel J Walker,et al.  Evaluation of toxic equivalency factors for induction of cytochromes P450 CYP1A1 and CYP1A2 enzyme activity by dioxin-like compounds. , 2004, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[14]  M. Berenbaum What is synergy? , 1989, Pharmacological reviews.

[15]  Paula Sánchez-Marín,et al.  Comments on “Isobolographic Analysis for Combinations of a Full and Partial Agonist: Curved Isoboles” , 2006, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

[16]  E. L I S A B E T E S I L V A,et al.  Something from “ Nothing ”-Eight Weak Estrogenic Chemicals Combined at Concentrations below NOECs Produce Significant Mixture Effects , 2022 .

[17]  Ronald J. Tallarida Response to Comments on “Isobolographic Analysis for Combinations of a Full and Partial Agonist: Curved Isoboles” , 2006, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

[18]  Ariens Ej,et al.  A theoretical basis of molecular pharmacology. I. Interactions of one or two compounds with one receptor system. , 1956 .

[19]  Kannan Krishnan,et al.  Physiological modeling and extrapolation of pharmacokinetic interactions from binary to more complex chemical mixtures. , 2002, Environmental health perspectives.

[20]  J. Foreman,et al.  Textbook of Receptor Pharmacology , 2011 .

[21]  M. E. Hahn,et al.  Relative contributions of affinity and intrinsic efficacy to aryl hydrocarbon receptor ligand potency. , 2000, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[22]  J. Black,et al.  Operational models of pharmacological agonism , 1983, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[23]  John P. Groten,et al.  Sensory irritation to mixtures of formaldehyde, acrolein, and acetaldehyde in rats , 1996, Archives of Toxicology.

[24]  Eric B Higley,et al.  Relative potencies of individual chlorinated and brominated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons for induction of aryl hydrocarbon receptor-mediated responses. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[25]  Limitations of the toxic equivalency factor approach for risk assessment of TCDD and related compounds. , 1997, Teratogenesis, carcinogenesis, and mutagenesis.

[26]  Berenbaum Mc What is synergy? , 1989, Pharmacological reviews.