This article assesses the response below a toxicological threshold for 1888 antibacterial agents in Escherichia coli, using 11 concentrations with twofold concentration spacing in a high-throughput study. The data set had important strengths such as low variability in the control (2%—3% SD), a repeat measure of all wells, and a built-in replication. Bacterial growth at concentrations below the toxic threshold is significantly greater than that in the controls, consistent with a hormetic concentration response. These findings, along with analyses of published literature and complementary evaluations of concentration-response model predictions of low-concentration effects in yeast, indicate a lack of support for the broadly and historically accepted threshold model for responses to concentrations below the toxic threshold.
Calabrese EJHistorical blunders: how toxicology got the dose-response relationship half right. Cell Mol Biol2005a; 51: 643-654.
2.
Calabrese EJ , Baldwin LAThe hormetic dose response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology. Toxicol Sci2003a; 71: 246-250.
3.
Calabrese EJ , Baldwin LAThe frequency of U-shaped dose-responses in the toxicological literature. Toxicol Sci2001a; 62: 330-338.
4.
Calabrese EJParadigm lost, paradigm found: the re-emergence of hormesis as a fundamental dose response model in the toxicological sciences . Environ Pollut2005b; 138: 379-411.
5.
Calabrese EJHormesis: from marginalization to mainstream. A case for hormesis as the default dose-response model in risk assessment . Toxicol Appl Pharmacol2004; 197: 125-136.
6.
Calabrese EJ , Stanek EJ, Nascarella MA, Hoffmann GRHormesis predicts low-dose responses better than threshold models. Int J Toxicol2008; 27: 369-378.
7.
Calabrese EJ , Staudenmayer JW, Stanek EJ, Hoffmann GRHormesis outperforms threshold model in NCI anti-tumor drug screening data. Toxicol Sci2006; 94: 368-378.
8.
Casadaban MJ , Cohen SNAnalysis of gene-control signals by DNA-fusion and cloning in Escherichiacoli. Mol Biol1980 ; 138: 179-207.
Brinkmann M. , Lütkemeyer D., Gudermann F., Lehmann J.New technologies for automated cell counting based on optical image analysis ‘The Cellscreen.’ Cytotechnology2002; 38: 119-127.
11.
Crump KSA new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fund Appl Toxicol1984; 4: 854-871.
12.
Calabrese EJ , Baldwin LASpecial issue: hormesis: environmental and biomedical perspectives. Crit Rev Toxicol2003b; 33: 213-424.
13.
Calabrese EJ , Baldwin LASpecial issue: scientific foundations of hormesis . Crit Rev Toxicol2001b; 31: 351-695.
14.
Calabrese EJHormesis: why it is important to toxicology and toxicologists. Environ Toxicol Chem2008 ; 27: 1451-1474.
15.
Calabrese EJ , Blain R.Hormesis and plant biology. Environ. Pollut2008; 157: 42-48.
16.
Calabrese EJ , Blain R.The occurrence of hormetic dose responses in the toxicological literature, the hormesis database: an overview. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol2005; 202: 289-301.
17.
Smith MIAn investigation into the chemotherapy of the acridine dyes in experimental tuberculosis. J Pharmacol Exper Ther1923; 20: 419-434.
18.
Marshall MS , Hrenoff AKBacteriostasis. J Infect Dis1937; 61: 42-54.
19.
Salle AJFundamental principles of bacteriology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939.
20.
Welch H., Price CW, Randall WAIncrease in fatality rate of E-typhosa for white mice by streptomycin. Am Pharmacol Assoc1946; 35: 155-158.
21.
Randall WA, Price CW, Welch H.Demonstration of hormesis (increase in fatality rate) by penicillin. Am J Public Health1947; 37: 421-425.
22.
Clifton CEIntroduction to bacterial physiology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957.
23.
Lamanna C., Mallette MFBasic bacteriology its biological and chemical background. 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: The Williams & Wilkins Company, 1965.
24.
Davies J., Spiegelman GB, Yim G.The world of subinhibitory antibiotic concentrations. Curr Opin Microbiol2006; 9: 445-453.
25.
Linares JF, Gustafsson I., Baquero F., Martinez JLAntibiotics as intermicrobial signaling agents instead of weapons. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA2006; 103: 19484-19489.
