The hormetic dose-response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology.

The threshold dose-response model is widely viewed as the most dominant model in toxicology. The present study was designed to test the validity of the threshold model by assessing the responses of doses below the toxicological NOAEL (no observed adverse effect level) in relationship to the control response (i.e., unexposed group). Nearly 1,800 doses below the NOAEL, from 664 dose-response relationships derived from a previously published database that satisfied a priori entry criteria, were evaluated. While the threshold model predicts a 1:1 ratio of responses "greater than" to "less than" the control response (i.e., a random distribution), a 2.5:1 ratio (i.e., 1171:464) was observed, reflecting 31% more responses above the control value than expected (p < 0.0001). The mean response (calculated as % control response) of doses below the NOAEL was 115.0% +/- 1.5 standard error of the mean (SEM). These findings challenge the long-standing belief in the primacy of the threshold model in toxicology (and other areas of biology involving dose-response relationships) and provide strong support for the hormetic-like biphasic dose-response model characterized by a low-dose stimulation and a high-dose inhibition. These findings may affect numerous aspects of toxicological and biological/biomedical research related to dose-response relationships, including study design, risk assessment, as well as chemotherapeutic strategies.

[1]  E J Calabrese,et al.  Hormesis: U-shaped dose responses and their centrality in toxicology. , 2001, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[2]  E. Calabrese,et al.  The frequency of U-shaped dose responses in the toxicological literature. , 2001, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[3]  E. Calabrese,et al.  U-shaped dose-responses in biology, toxicology, and public health. , 2001, Annual review of public health.

[4]  E J Calabrese,et al.  Hormesis: A Highly Generalizable and Reproducible Phenomenon With Important Implications for Risk Assessment , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[5]  J. Doull,et al.  Scientific Foundations of Hormesis. Part 2. Maturation, Strengths, Limitations, and Possible Applications in Toxicology, Pharmacology, and Epidemiology , 2003, Critical reviews in toxicology.

[6]  A. Hayes Principles and methods of toxicology , 1982 .

[7]  Curtis D. Klaassen,et al.  CASARETT AND DOULL'S TOXICOLOGY , 2013, The Ulster Medical Journal.

[8]  Edward J. Calabrese,et al.  Radiation Hormesis and Cancer , 2002 .

[9]  L. Reijnders Scientific foundations of hormesis: E. Calabrese and L.A. Baldwin, Guest Editors. Special issue of Critical Reviews in Toxicology 2001; 31 issues 4 & 5: pages 351–694, CRC Press, “000 N.W. Corporate Blvd., Boca Raton, Florida 33431, ISSN # 1040-8444 , 2002 .

[10]  Edward J Calabrese,et al.  Hormesis: the dose-response revolution. , 2003, Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology.

[11]  E. Calabrese,et al.  Hormesis and high-risk groups. , 2002, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.