An illusion of hormesis in the Ames test: Statistical significance is not equivalent to biological significance

被引:9
|
作者
Zeiger, Errol [1 ]
Hoffmann, George R. [2 ]
机构
[1] Errol Zeiger Consulting, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 USA
[2] Coll Holy Cross, Dept Biol, Worcester, MA 01610 USA
关键词
Hormesis; Salmonella mutagenicity; Ames test; Dose-response; Nonlinear response; SALMONELLA MUTAGENICITY TESTS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS; RISK-ASSESSMENT; CHEMICALS; MODEL;
D O I
10.1016/j.mrgentox.2012.03.008
中图分类号
Q81 [生物工程学(生物技术)]; Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 0836 ; 090102 ; 100705 ;
摘要
A recent report (Calabrese et al., Mutat. Res. 726 (2011) 91-97) concluded that an analysis of Ames test mutagenicity data provides evidence of hormesis in mutagenicity dose-response relationships. An examination of the data used in this study and the conclusions regarding hormesis reveal a number of concerns regarding the analyses and possible misinterpretations of the Salmonella data. The claim of hormesis is based on test data from the National Toxicology Program using Salmonella strain TA100. Approximately half of the chemicals regarded as hormetic, and the majority of the specific dose-responses identified as hormetic, were actually nonmutagenic. We conclude that the data provide no evidence of hormetic effects. The Ames test is an excellent measure of bacterial mutagenicity, but the numbers of revertant (mutant) colonies on the plate are the result of a complex interaction between mutagenicity and toxicity, which renders the test inappropriate for demonstrating hormesis in bacterial mutagenicity experiments. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:89 / 93
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] WHEN STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE IS NOT ENOUGH: INVESTIGATING RELEVANCE, PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, AND STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
    Mohajeri, Kaveh
    Mesgari, Mostafa
    Lee, Allen S.
    MIS QUARTERLY, 2020, 44 (02) : 525 - 559
  • [32] STATISTICAL QUESTION Clinical significance versus statistical significance
    Sedgwick, Philip
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2014, 348
  • [33] Equivalent input produces different output in the UniFrac significance test
    Long, Jeffrey R.
    Pittet, Vanessa
    Trost, Brett
    Yan, Qingxiang
    Vickers, David
    Haakensen, Monique
    Kusalik, Anthony
    BMC BIOINFORMATICS, 2014, 15
  • [34] Equivalent input produces different output in the UniFrac significance test
    Jeffrey R Long
    Vanessa Pittet
    Brett Trost
    Qingxiang Yan
    David Vickers
    Monique Haakensen
    Anthony Kusalik
    BMC Bioinformatics, 15
  • [35] Statistical Significance Versus Clinical Significance
    Houle, Timothy T.
    Stump, David A.
    SEMINARS IN CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR ANESTHESIA, 2008, 12 (01) : 5 - 6
  • [36] Statistical significance and clinical significance are not synonyms!
    Turk, DC
    CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2000, 16 (03): : 185 - 187
  • [37] STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND CLINICAL-SIGNIFICANCE
    LEHMANN, A
    AGE AND AGEING, 1992, 21 (01) : 72 - 72
  • [38] AMES TEST - THE EFFECT OF CHANGING BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ON METHODS OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION - A REVIEW
    VOLLMAR, J
    BIOMETRICS, 1984, 40 (01) : 269 - 269
  • [39] A SIMPLE STATISTICAL TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY DATA
    MILLER, WR
    HEALTH PHYSICS, 1969, 17 (05): : 736 - +
  • [40] Statistical significance
    Ranstam, Jonas
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2008, 49 (02) : 220 - 221