Human & Experimental Toxicology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Waddell, W. J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Waddell, W. J
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 24, No. 6, 325-332 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/0960327105ht525oa

Comparisons of thresholds for carcinogenicity on linear and logarithmic dosage scales

William J Waddell

Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville; 14300 Rose Wycombe Lane, Prospect, KY 40059, USA bwaddell{at}louisville.edu

Comparisons on a linear and the Rozman logarithmic scale for dosage versus carcinogenicity in rodents are presented for methyl eugenol (ME), nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA), ethyl carbamate (EC) and 2-acetylaminofluorene (AAF). Each of these chemicals has been shown to be carcinogenic in experimental animals and, in addition, humans are regularly exposed to at least three of these compounds (ME, NDEA, EC) in foods. Although the source of adducts from AAF is not known, the aminofluorene (AF) adduct is present in humans. Plotted on the same graphs are either some doses from common foods (ME, NDEA, EC) or adducts (AF) on human haemoglobin, for perspective, with their thresholds for carcinogenesis in animals. Use of a linear scale when comparing doses administered to animals in studies of carcinogenicity with doses of those same chemicals to which humans are exposed does not provide useful, comparative information. On the other hand, the Rozman logarithmic scale for dose allows one to put these relative doses in perspective. It is also evident that forcing a linear extrapolation through the zero, zero origin does not agree with the experimental data. Further analyses for goodness of fit for these dose responses reveal that the dose response for three of these compounds (ME, NDEA, EC) appears to be linear with the logarithm of the dose. However, AAF appears to be linear with the logarithm of the dose for bladder, but not for liver. It is suggested that the high background incidence of tumours in the BALB/c StCrlfC3Hf/Nctr mouse liver may confound the interpretation of dose response from AAF carcinogenesis in mouse liver.

Key Words: 2-acetylaminofluorene • carcinogenicity • ethyl carbamate • linear and log scales • methyl eugenol • nitrosodiethylamine • risk assessment


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum Exp ToxicolHome page
W J Waddell
Critique of dose response in carcinogenesis
Human and Experimental Toxicology, July 1, 2006; 25(7): 413 - 436.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Exp ToxicolHome page
W J Waddell
Waddell reply to letter of Andersen and Renwick
Human and Experimental Toxicology, November 1, 2005; 24(11): 605 - 606.
[PDF]