Literature DB >> 8187727

Nonparametric regression analysis of data from the Ames mutagenicity assay.

J B Cologne1, N E Breslow.   

Abstract

The Ames assay has received widespread attention from statisticians because of its popularity and importance to risk assessment. However, investigators have yet to routinely apply modern regression methods that have been available for more than a decade. We study yet another approach, the application of nonparametric regression techniques, not as the ultimate solution but rather as a framework within which to address some of the shortcomings of other methods. But nonparametric regression is itself prone to difficulties when applied to Ames assay data, as we show through the use of two examples and some simulation studies. We argue that there remains a great need for further development of statistical methods suitable to the Ames assay. It is hoped that such work can be stimulated and guided by greater collaboration between statisticians and laboratory investigators.

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8187727      PMCID: PMC1566883          DOI: 10.1289/ehp.94102s161

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Health Perspect        ISSN: 0091-6765            Impact factor:   9.031


  10 in total

1.  Mitogenesis is only one factor in carcinogenesis.

Authors:  I B Weinstein
Journal:  Science       Date:  1991-01-25       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Analysis of dose-response patterns in mutation research.

Authors:  R H Haynes; F Eckardt
Journal:  Can J Genet Cytol       Date:  1979-09

3.  Methods for detecting carcinogens and mutagens with the Salmonella/mammalian-microsome mutagenicity test.

Authors:  B N Ames; J Mccann; E Yamasaki
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1975-12       Impact factor: 2.433

4.  Revised methods for the Salmonella mutagenicity test.

Authors:  D M Maron; B N Ames
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1983-05       Impact factor: 2.433

5.  An empirical approach to the statistical analysis of mutagenesis data from the Salmonella test.

Authors:  L Bernstein; J Kaldor; J McCann; M C Pike
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1982-08       Impact factor: 2.433

6.  A comparison of alternative measures of mutagenic potency in the Salmonella (Ames) test.

Authors:  L Horn; J Kaldor; J McCann
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1983-05       Impact factor: 2.433

7.  Modeling the Ames test.

Authors:  A G Stead; V Hasselblad; J P Creason; L Claxton
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1981-02       Impact factor: 2.433

8.  Statistical analysis of the Ames Salmonella/microsome test.

Authors:  B H Margolin; N Kaplan; E Zeiger
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1981-06       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Evaluating statistical analyses and reproducibility of microbial mutagenicity assays.

Authors:  K C Chu; K M Patel; A H Lin; R E Tarone; M S Linhart; V C Dunkel
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1981-06       Impact factor: 2.433

10.  Regression analysis of Ames test data.

Authors:  L E Myers; N H Sexton; L I Southerland; T J Wolff
Journal:  Environ Mutagen       Date:  1981
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.