Advertisement

Two decades (1998–2018) of research Progress on Hormesis: advancing biological understanding and enabling novel applications

  • Walter J. Kozumbo
  • Edward J. CalabreseEmail author
Comment
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

This commentary briefly summarizes the extraordinary resurgence of hormesis within the biological, biomedical, toxicological and risk assessment domains over the past two decades. It places this resurgence within the context of challenging the scientific validity of the threshold and linear dose responses. It argues that conducting research on mechanisms that actuate and regulate the stimulatory response features of hormesis will provide the knowledge needed to develop potentially transformational applications aimed at protecting and enhancing biological resiliency as well as treating/curing a multitude of diverse medical conditions.

Keywords

Hormesis Hormetic Threshold dose response Linear non-threshold dose response LNT Biphasic dose response Risk assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

EJC acknowledges longtime support from the US Air Force (AFOSR FA9550-13-1-0047) and ExxonMobil Foundation (S18200000000256). The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing policies or endorsement, either expressed or implied. Sponsors had no involvement in study design, collection, analysis, interpretation, writing and decision to and where to submit for publication consideration.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interests

None.

References

  1. Bernal AJ, Dolinoy DC, Huang D, Skaar DA, Weinhouse C, Jirtle RL (2013) Adaptive radiation-induced epigenetic alterations mitigated by antioxidants. FASEB J 27:665–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Calabrese EJ (2008) Hormesis: why it is important to toxicology and toxicologists. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1451–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calabrese EJ (2015) On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith. Environ Res 142:432–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calabrese EJ (2016a) Preconditioning is hormesis part I: documentation, dose-response features and mechanistic foundations. Pharmacol Res 110:242–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calabrese EJ (2016b) Preconditioning is hormesis part II: how the conditioning dose mediates protection: dose optimization within temporal and mechanistic frameworks. Pharmacol Res 110:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calabrese EJ (2017) Flaws in the LNT single-hit model for cancer risk: an historical assessment. Environ Res 158:773–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calabrese EJ (2018) From Muller to mechanism: how LNT became the default model for cancer risk assessment. Environ Pollut 241:289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calabrese EJ, Agathokleous E (2018) Building biological shields via Hormeis. Trends Pharmacol Sci 40(1):8–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA (1997) A quantitatively-based methodology for the evaluation of chemical hormesis. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 3:545–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA (2001a) The frequency of U-shaped dose responses in the toxicological literature. Toxicol Sci 62:330–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA (2001b) Hormesis: U-shaped dose responses and their centrality in toxicology. Trends Pharmacol Sci 22:285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA (2003a) Hormesis: the dose-response revolution. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 43:175–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA (2003b) The hormetic dose-response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology. Toxicol Sci 71:246–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calabrese EJ, Blain RB (2011) The hormesis database: the occurrence of hormetic dose responses in the toxicological literature. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 61:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA, Holland CD (1999) Hormesis: a highly generalizable and reproducible phenomenon with important implications for risk assessment. Risk Anal 19:261–281Google Scholar
  16. Calabrese EJ, Staudenmayer JW, Stanek EJ, Hoffmann GR (2006) Hormesis outperforms threshold model in National Cancer Institute antitumor drug screening database. Toxicol Sci 94:368–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Calabrese EJ, Agathokleous E, Kozumbo WJ, Stanek EJ 3rd, Leonard D (2019) Estimating the range of the maximum hormetic stimulatory response. Environ Res 170:337–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crocetti S, Beyer C, Schade G, Egli M, Frohlich J, Franco-Obrego A (2013) Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast Cancer cell viability. PLoS One 8(9):e72944.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072944 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huang YY, Sharma SK, Carroll J, Hamblin MR (2011) Biphasic dose response in low level light therapy - an update. Dose-Response 9:602–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leak RK, Calabrese EJ, Kozumbo WJ, Gidday JM, Johnson TJ, Mitchell JR, Ozaki CK, Wetzker R, Bast A, Belz RG, Bøtker HE, Koch S, Mattson MP, Simon RP, Jirtle RL, Melvin E, Andersen ME (2018) Enhancing and extending biological performance and resilience. Dose-Response 16(3).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325818784501
  21. Nascarella MA, Stanek EJ III, Hoffmann GR, Calabrese EJ (2009) Quantification of hormesis in anticancer-agent dose responses. Dose-Response 7:160–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pilla A, Fitzsimmons R, Muehsam D, Wu J, Rohde C, Casper D (2011) Electromagnetic fields as first messenger in biological signaling: application to calmodulin-dependent signaling in tissue repair. Biochim Biophys Acta 1810:1236–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Salehpour F, Mahmoudi J, Kamari F, Sadigh-Eteghad S, Rasta SH, Hamblin MR (2018) Brain Photobiomodulation therapy: a narrative review. Mol Neurobiol 55:6601–6636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sannino A, Zeni O, Romeo S, Massa R, Gialanella G, Grossi G, Manti L, Vijayalaxmi, Scarfi MR (2014) Adaptive response in human blood lymphocytes exposed to non-ionizing radiofrequency fields: resistance to ionizing radiation-induced damage. J Radiat Res 55:210–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sun C, Wei XX, Fei Y, Su LL, Zhao XY, Chen GD, Xu ZP (2016) Mobile phone signal exposure triggers a hormesis-like effect in Atm(+/+) and Atm(−/−) mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Sci Rep 6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International CCN Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Health SciencesUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations