Advertisement

Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 27–42 | Cite as

Dose-response relationships in mutagenicity assays including an appropriate positive control group: a multiple testing approach

  • Ludwig A. Hothorn
  • Makoto Hayashi
  • Dirk Seidel
Article

Abstract

The objective of mutagenicity assays in regulatory toxicology is the decision on non-mutagenicity or mutagenicity. An inherent problem of statistical tests is the possibility of false decisions, i.e., a mutagenic substance will be falsely labeled as non-mutagenic or a non-mutagenic substance will be falsely labeled as mutagenic. These probabilities of false negative (consumer's risk=type II error) and/or false positive decision (producer's risk=type I error) can be limited by using suitable testing procedures as well as a design including an appropriate positive control. Using the proof of hazard concept the well-known many-to-one procedures with total order restriction for increasing effect differences are used, while using the proof of safety concept procedures on equivalence with total order restriction are discussed. Both approaches are demonstrated on a real data example.

dose-response analysis positive control mutagenicity studies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anonymous. (1991) Guidance Note: The practical interpretation of Annex V: Test method B10, the in vitro mammalian cell cytogenetics test. Commission of the EC, Directorate General Environment, XI/574/91 rev. 2, Brussels.Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous. (1989) Mutagenicity testing and screening for carcinogenicity. Official Journal of the European Commission, No. L 133/55.Google Scholar
  3. Ashby, J., Lefevre, P.A., Elliott, B.M., and Clapp, M.J.L. (1996) Methyl methansulphonate (MMS) as a resource conserving and reliable positive control agent for male rat and male mouse dominant lethal assays. Mutagenesis, 11, 611-613.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, P. and Budde M. (1994) Multiple testing for detecting efficient dose steps. Biometrical Journal, 36, 3-15.Google Scholar
  5. Bauer, P., Rohmel, J., Maurer, W., and Hothorn, L.A. (1998) Testing strategies in multidose trials including active control. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2133-2146.Google Scholar
  6. Bechhofer, R.E. and Dunnett, C.W. (1982) Multiple comparisons for orthogonal contrasts: example and table. Technometrics, 24, 213-222.Google Scholar
  7. Bross, I.D. (1985) Why proof of safety is much more difficult than proof of hazard. Biometrics, 41, 785-793.Google Scholar
  8. Brunner E. and Puri M.L. (1996) Nonparametric methods in design and analysis of experiments. In Ghosh J. and Rao C.R. (eds.) Handbook of Statistics, 13, pp. 630-703.Google Scholar
  9. Cariello N.F. and Piegorsch W.W. (1996) The Ames test: the two-fold rule revisited. Mutation Research, 369, 23-31.Google Scholar
  10. Dunnett C.W. (1955) A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 50, 1096-1121.Google Scholar
  11. Efron B. and Tibshirani R.J. (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap, Chapman and Hall, New York, pp. 1-436.Google Scholar
  12. Fairweather, W.R., Bhattacharyya, A., Ceuppens, P.P., Heimann, G., Hothorn, L.A., Kodell, R.L., Lin, K.K., Mager, H., Middleton, B.J., Slob, W., Soper, K.A., Stallard, N., Ventre, J., and Wright, J. (1998) Biostatistical Methodology in Carcinogenicity Studies. Drug Information Journal, 32, 401-421.Google Scholar
  13. Gross A.J. and Mantel N. (1967) The effective use of both positive and negative controls in screening experiments. Biometrics, 23, 285-295.Google Scholar
  14. Hauschke, D. (1997) Statistical proof of safety in toxicological studies. Drug Information Journal, 31, 357-361.Google Scholar
  15. Hauschke, D., Hayashi M., Lin, K.K., Lovell, D.P., Robinson, W.D., and Yoshimura, I. (1997) Recommendations for biostatistics of mutagenicity studies. Drug Information Journal, 31, 323-326.Google Scholar
  16. Hauschke, D., Kieser, M., Diletti, E., and Burke M. (1999) Sample size determination for proving equivalence based on the ratio of two means for normally distributed data. Statistics in Medicine, 18, 93-105.Google Scholar
  17. Hauschke, D. and Hothorn, L.A. (1998) Safety assessment in toxicology studies: proof of safety versus proof of hazard. In Chow, S.-C. and Liu, J.-P. (eds): Design and analysis of animal studies in pharmaceutical development, Chapter 6. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 197-225.Google Scholar
  18. Hauschke, D., Kieser, M., and Hothorn L.A. (1999) Proof of safety in toxicology based on the ratio of two means for normally distributed data. Biometrical Journal, 41, 295-304.Google Scholar
  19. Hayashi, M., Yoshimura, T., and Sofuni, T. (1989) A procedure for data analysis of the rodent micronucleus test involving a historical control. Environmental Health Perspectives, 63, 217-224.Google Scholar
  20. Holland B. and Ordoukhani N.K. (1990) Balancing type I and type II error probabilities: further comments on proof of safety vs. proof of hazard. Communications in Statistics Theory and Methods, A 19, 3557-3570.Google Scholar
  21. Hothorn, L.A. (1989) Robustness study on Williams and Shirley procedure, with application in toxicology. Biometrical Journal, 31, 891-903.Google Scholar
  22. Hothorn, L.A. (1995) Biostatistical analysis of experimental designs with a positive control group in toxicology. In Vollmar, J. (ed.): Biometrie in der chemisch-pharmazeutischen Industrie, 6, Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 19-26.Google Scholar
  23. Hothorn, L.A. and Lehmacher, W. (1991) A simple testing procedure “control versus k treatments” for one-sided ordered alternatives. Biometrical Journal, 33, 179-189.Google Scholar
  24. Hothorn, L.A., Neuhauser, M., and Koch, H.-F. (1997) Analysis of randomized dose-finding studies: closure test modification based on multiple contrast tests. Biometrical Journal, 39, 467-479.Google Scholar
  25. Hothorn, L.A., Lin, K.K., Hamada, C., and Rebel, W. (1997) Recommendations for biostatistics of repeated toxicity studies. Drug Information Journal, 30, 327-334.Google Scholar
  26. Hughes T.J., Lewtas J., and Claxton L.D. (1997) Development of a standard reference material for diesel mutagenicity in the Salmonella plate incorporation assay. Mutation Research, 391, 243-258.Google Scholar
  27. Krishna G., Petrere J., Anderson J., and Theiss J. (1995) Use of cyclophosphamide as a positive control in dominant lethal and micronucleus assays. Mutation Research, 335, 331-337.Google Scholar
  28. Leimer, I., Peil, H., and Ellenberger, J. (1991) Statistical analysis of the micronucleus test with Fisher-Pitman permutation test. In Statistical Methods in Toxicology. Hothorn, L. (ed.). Lecture Notes in Medical Informatics, 43, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 20-24.Google Scholar
  29. Lovell, D.P., Albanese, R., Anderson, D., and Amphlett, G.E. (1989) Analysis of in vivo cytogenetic assays. In Statistical Evaluation of Mutagenicity Test Data, Kirkland, D.J. (ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 184-231.Google Scholar
  30. Maurer, W., Hothorn, L.A., and Lehmacher, W. (1995) Multiple comparisons in drug clinical trials and preclinical assays: a-priori ordered hypotheses. In Vollmar, J. (ed.), Biometrie in der chemisch-pharmazeutischen Industrie, 6, Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 3-18.Google Scholar
  31. Marcus, R., Peritz, E., and Gabriel, K.B. (1976) On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika, 63, 655-660.Google Scholar
  32. Millard, S.P. (1987) Proof of safety vs. proof of hazard. Biometrics, 43, 719-25.Google Scholar
  33. Neuhäuser, M. and Hothorn, L.A. (1997) Trend Tests for Dichotomous Endpoints with Application to Carcinogenicity Studies. Drug Information Journal, 31, 463-469.Google Scholar
  34. Ozawa, S., Kimura, Y., and Hitiotsumachi S. (1994) Acetaldehyde induced micronuclei in mice administered intraperiteonally. Journal of Mammalian Genotoxicity, 2, 33-35.Google Scholar
  35. Ruberg, S.J. (1989) Contrasts for identifying the minimum effective dose. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 816-822.Google Scholar
  36. Sasabuchi, S. (1988a) A multivariate one-sided test with composite hypotheses determined by linear inequalities when the covariance matrix has an unknown scale factor. Memoirs of the Faculty of Science, Kyushu University, Series A, Mathematics, 42, 9-19.Google Scholar
  37. Sasabuchi, S. (1988b) A multivariate one-sided test with composite hypotheses when the covariance matrix is completely unknown. Memoirs of the Faculty of Science, Kyushu University, Series A, Mathematics, 42, 37-46.Google Scholar
  38. Shirley, E.A. (1977) A non-parametric equivalent of Williams' test for contrasting increasing dose levels of a treatment. Biometrics, 33, 386-389.Google Scholar
  39. Stallard, N. and Whitehead, A. (1996) An alternative approach to the analysis of animal carcinogenicity studies. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 23, 244-248.Google Scholar
  40. Tamhane A.C., Hochberg Y., and Dunnett C.W. (1996) Multiple test procedures for dose finding. Biometrics, 52, 21-37.Google Scholar
  41. Tachibana, T. (1984) A critical view of the utility of positive controls in a test battery. Neurobehavioral Toxicology and Teratology, 6, 155-159.Google Scholar
  42. Williams, D.A. (1971) A test for differences between treatment means when several dose levels are compared with a zero dose control. Biometrics, 27, 103-117.Google Scholar
  43. Williams, D.A. (1972) The comparison of several dose levels with a zero dose control. Biometrics, 28, 519-531.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ludwig A. Hothorn
    • 1
  • Makoto Hayashi
    • 2
  • Dirk Seidel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BioinformaticsUniversity of HannoverHannoverGermany
  2. 2.National Institute of Health SciencesTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations