Literature DB >> 28756009

Flaws in the LNT single-hit model for cancer risk: An historical assessment.

Edward J Calabrese1.   

Abstract

The LNT single-hit model was derived from the Nobel Prize-winning research of Herman J. Muller who showed that x-rays could induce gene mutations in Drosophila and that the dose response for these so-called mutational events was linear. Lewis J. Stadler, another well-known and respected geneticist at the time, strongly disagreed with and challenged Muller's claims. Detailed evaluations by Stadler over a prolonged series of investigations revealed that Muller's experiments had induced gross heritable chromosomal damage instead of specific gene mutations as had been claimed by Muller at his Nobel Lecture. These X-ray-induced alterations became progressively more frequent and were of larger magnitude (more destructive) with increasing doses. Thus, Muller's claim of having induced discrete gene mutations represented a substantial speculative overreach and was, in fact, without proof. The post hoc arguments of Muller to support his gene mutation hypothesis were significantly challenged and weakened by a series of new findings in the areas of cytogenetics, reverse mutation, adaptive and repair processes, and modern molecular methods for estimating induced genetic damage. These findings represented critical and substantial limitations to Muller's hypothesis of X-ray-induced gene mutations. Furthermore, they challenged the scientific foundations used in support of the LNT single-hit model by severing the logical nexus between Muller's data on radiation-induced inheritable alterations and the LNT single-hit model. These findings exposed fundamental scientific flaws that undermined not only the seminal recommendation of the 1956 BEAR I Genetics Panel to adopt the LNT single-hit Model for risk assessment but also any rationale for its continued use in the present day.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28756009     DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.07.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Res        ISSN: 0013-9351            Impact factor:   6.498


  13 in total

Review 1.  Goodbye to the bioassay.

Authors:  Jay I Goodman
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 3.524

Review 2.  Role of Mitochondria in Radiation Responses: Epigenetic, Metabolic, and Signaling Impacts.

Authors:  Dietrich Averbeck; Claire Rodriguez-Lafrasse
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-10-13       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 3.  A glance into how the cold war and governmental loyalty investigations came to affect a leading U.S. radiation geneticist: Lewis J. Stadler's nightmare.

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese
Journal:  Philos Ethics Humanit Med       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 2.464

Review 4.  Was Muller's 1946 Nobel Prize research for radiation-induced gene mutations peer-reviewed?

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese
Journal:  Philos Ethics Humanit Med       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 2.464

5.  The EPA Cancer Risk Assessment Default Model Proposal: Moving Away From the LNT.

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese; Jaap C Hanekamp; Dima Yazji Shamoun
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 6.  Requirements for Transparency and Communicability of Regulatory Science.

Authors:  A Alan Moghissi; Richard A Calderone; Camille Estupigan; Rae Koch; Kelsey Manfredi; Vanessa Vanderdys
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 2.658

7.  Regulating Ionizing Radiation Based on Metrics for Evaluation of Regulatory Science Claims.

Authors:  A Alan Moghissi; Richard Calderone; Furzan Azam; Teresa Nowak; Sarah Sheppard; Dennis K McBride; Lisa Jaeger
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 2.658

8.  The Mistaken Birth and Adoption of LNT: An Abridged Version.

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2017-10-09       Impact factor: 2.658

9.  Collaborative study of thresholds for mutagens: proposal of a typical protocol for detection of hormetic responses in cytotoxicity tests.

Authors:  Shizuyo Sutou; Akiko Koeda; Kana Komatsu; Toshiyuki Shiragiku; Hiroshi Seki; Kohji Yamakage; Takeru Niitsuma; Toshiyuki Kudo; Akihiro Wakata
Journal:  Genes Environ       Date:  2018-10-08

Review 10.  Hormesis: Path and Progression to Significance.

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2018-09-21       Impact factor: 5.923

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.