Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Environmental Health Perspectives logoLink to Environmental Health Perspectives
. 1985 Nov;63:187–194. doi: 10.1289/ehp.8563187

Statistical studies in genetic toxicology: a perspective from the U.S. National Toxicology Program.

B H Margolin
PMCID: PMC1568481  PMID: 4076083

Abstract

This paper surveys recent, as yet unpublished, statistical studies arising from research in genetic toxicology within the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP). These studies all involve analyses of data from Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity tests, but the statistical methodologies are broadly applicable. Three issues are addressed: First, what is a tenable sampling model for Ames test data, and how does one best test the adequacy of the Poisson sampling assumption? Second, given that nonmonotone dose-response curves are fairly common in the Salmonella assay, what new statistical techniques or modifications of existing ones seem appropriate to accommodate to this reality? Finally, an intriguing question: How can the extensive NTP Ames test data base be used to assess the characteristics of any mutagen-nonmutagen decision rule? The last issue is illustrated with the commonly used "two-times background" rule.

Full text

PDF
187

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. ANSCOMBE F. J. Sampling theory of the negative binomial and logarithmic series distributions. Biometrika. 1950 Dec;37(3-4):358–382. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ames B. N. Identifying environmental chemicals causing mutations and cancer. Science. 1979 May 11;204(4393):587–593. doi: 10.1126/science.373122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ames B. N., Mccann J., Yamasaki E. Methods for detecting carcinogens and mutagens with the Salmonella/mammalian-microsome mutagenicity test. Mutat Res. 1975 Dec;31(6):347–364. doi: 10.1016/0165-1161(75)90046-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernstein L., Kaldor J., McCann J., Pike M. C. An empirical approach to the statistical analysis of mutagenesis data from the Salmonella test. Mutat Res. 1982 Aug;97(4):267–281. doi: 10.1016/0165-1161(82)90026-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Collings B. J., Margolin B. H., Oehlert G. W. Analyses for binomial data, with application to the fluctuation test for mutagenicity. Biometrics. 1981 Dec;37(4):775–794. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hollstein M., McCann J., Angelosanto F. A., Nichols W. W. Short-term tests for carcinogens and mutagens. Mutat Res. 1979 Sep;65(3):133–226. doi: 10.1016/0165-1110(79)90014-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Margolin B. H., Kaplan N., Zeiger E. Statistical analysis of the Ames Salmonella/microsome test. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 Jun;78(6):3779–3783. doi: 10.1073/pnas.78.6.3779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Potthoff R. F., Whittinghill M. Testing for homogeneity. II. The Poisson distribution. Biometrika. 1966 Jun;53(1):183–190. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Tarone R. E. The use of historical control information in testing for a trend in Poisson means. Biometrics. 1982 Jun;38(2):457–462. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Health Perspectives are provided here courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

RESOURCES