Weight/dose relationships

Figure 4.10. Dose-relationships for histamine release from rat mast cells induced by a variety of peptides [99], No calcium was added to the extracellular medium. Each point is the mean of two or more determinations A, poly(L-lysine) (molecular weight 30.000-70,000) , succinylated poly(L-lysine) (molecular weight 30,000-70f)00) V, [n-Phe7 )SP , fD-Prcr2, D-Phe7, D-Trpv]SP, u , SP/ A, eledoisin-related peptide , eledoisin O, N-terminal tetrapeptide of substance P.

The most important factor is the dose-time relationship. The amount of a substance that enters or contacts a person is called a dose. An important consideration in evaluating a dose is body weight. Dose is the quantity of a chemical substance that a surface, plant, or animal is exposed to. Time means how often one is exposed to or the duration of exposure to a chemical substance. In simple terms, the dose-time relationship provides information on how much of the test substance is involved and how often the exposure to the test substance occurs. This relationship gives rise to two different types of toxicity of a chemical substance—namely, acute toxicity and chronic toxicity. 

Data Analysis. (Arlett et al., 1989). A weighted analysis of variance is performed on the mutation frequencies, as the variation in the number of mutations per plate usually increases as the mean increases. Each dose of test compound is compared with the corresponding vehicle control by means of a one-sided Dunnett s test and, in addition, the mutation frequencies are examined to see whether there is a linear relationship with dose. 

The criterion employed for a positive response in this assay is a reproducible statistically significant increase in mutation frequency (weighted mean for duplicate treated cultures) over the concurrent vehicle control value (weighted mean for four independent control cultures). Ideally, the response should show evidence of a dose-response relationship. When a small isolated significant increase in mutation frequency is observed in only one of the two duplicate experiments, then a third test should be carried out. If the third test shows no significant effects, the initial increase is likely to be a chance result. In cases where an apparent treatment-related increase is thought to be a result of unusually low variability or a low control frequency, comparison with the laboratory historical control frequency may be justified. 

---