Literature DB >> 19234688

Getting the dose-response wrong: why hormesis became marginalized and the threshold model accepted.

Edward J Calabrese1.   

Abstract

The dose-response relationship is central to the biological and biomedical sciences. During the early decades of the twentieth century consensus emerged that the most fundamental dose-response relationship was the threshold model, upon which scientific, health and medical research/clinical practices have been based. This paper documents that the scientific community made a fundamental error on the nature of the dose response in accepting the threshold model and in rejecting the hormetic-biphasic model, principally due to conflicts with homeopathy. Not only does this paper detail the underlying factors leading to this dose response decision, but it reveals that the scientific community never validated the threshold model throughout the twentieth century. Recent findings indicate that the threshold model poorly predicts responses in the low dose zone whereas its dose response "rival", the hormesis model, has performed very well. This analysis challenges a key foundation upon which biological, biomedical and clinical science rest.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19234688     DOI: 10.1007/s00204-009-0411-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Toxicol        ISSN: 0340-5761            Impact factor:   5.153


  27 in total

1.  Hormesis and the salk polio vaccine.

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2011-10-25       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 2.  Clinical implications of cellular stress responses.

Authors:  Borut Poljšak; Irina Milisav
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 3.363

3.  Exposure to nanoparticles and hormesis.

Authors:  Ivo Iavicoli; Edward J Calabrese; Marc A Nascarella
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 4.  Cellular stress responses, the hormesis paradigm, and vitagenes: novel targets for therapeutic intervention in neurodegenerative disorders.

Authors:  Vittorio Calabrese; Carolin Cornelius; Albena T Dinkova-Kostova; Edward J Calabrese; Mark P Mattson
Journal:  Antioxid Redox Signal       Date:  2010-08-28       Impact factor: 8.401

5.  Radiation hormesis: historical perspective and implications for low-dose cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Alexander M Vaiserman
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 6.  Radiobiology in Cardiovascular Imaging.

Authors:  Pat Zanzonico; Lawrence Dauer; H William Strauss
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2016-12

7.  Hormesis: a conversation with a critic.

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2009-06-09       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  A metabolomics-driven elucidation of the anti-obesity mechanisms of xanthohumol.

Authors:  Jay S Kirkwood; LeeCole L Legette; Cristobal L Miranda; Yuan Jiang; Jan F Stevens
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 5.157

9.  Protective Effect of γ-Irradiation Against Hypochlorous Acid-Induced Haemolysis in Human Erythrocytes.

Authors:  Idolo Tedesco; Carmela Spagnuolo; Maria Russo; Roberta Iannitti; Annunziata Nappo; Gian Luigi Russo
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2012-11-16       Impact factor: 2.658

10.  Combining short-term metformin treatment and one bout of exercise does not increase insulin action in insulin-resistant individuals.

Authors:  Carrie G Sharoff; Todd A Hagobian; Steven K Malin; Stuart R Chipkin; Haiyan Yu; Michael F Hirshman; Laurie J Goodyear; Barry Braun
Journal:  Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 4.310

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.