Preclinical tests in genetic toxicology represent safety studies. Therefore, the primary concern in the evaluation of Ames test data is the control of the consumer risk, that is, the risk of erroneously concluding safety. Hence, an equivalence test procedure is adequate. This approach is presented beside the two-fold rule and classical tests for differences with respect to an order restricted alternative.
AmesBNMcCannJYamasakiE. Methods for detecting carcinogens and mutagens with the Salmonella/Mammalian-microsome mutagenicity test. Mutation Res.1975;31:347–364.
2.
EdlerL. Statistical methods for short-term tests in genetic toxicology: The first fifteen years. Mutation Res.1992;277:11–33.
3.
ConsulPJainG. A generalization of the Poisson distribution. Technometrics.1973;15:791–799.
4.
BroekhovenLHNestmannER. Statistical analysis of the Salmonella mutagenicity assay. In: KrewskiDFranklinC, eds. Statistics in toxicology.London: Gordon and Breach; 1991:205–264.
5.
ChuKCPatelKMLinAHTaroneRELinMSDunkelVC. Evaluating statistical analyses and reproducibility of microbial mutagenicity assays. Mutation Res.1981;85:119–132.
6.
MooreDFeltonJS. A microcomputer program for analyzing Ames test data. Mutation Res.1986;119:95–102.
7.
SimpsonDGMargolinBH. Nonparametric testing for dose-response curves subject to downturns: Asymptotic power considerations. Ann Stat.1990;18:373–390.
8.
SchmoorCSchumacherM. Adaptive statistical procedures for the analysis of nonmonotone dose-response relationships. Biometrie Informatik Medizin Biologie.1992;23:113–126.
9.
ChenYI. Nonparametric comparisons of umbrella pattern treatment effects with a control in a one-way layout. Comm Stat—Simula.1995;B22:749–764.
10.
RomDMCostelloRJConnellLT. On closed test procedures for dose-response analysis. Stat Med.1994;13: 1583–1596.
11.
TamhaneACHochbergYDunnettCW. Multiple test procedures for dose finding. Biometrics.1996;52:21–37.
12.
McCannJHornLKaldorJ. An evaluation of Salmonella (Ames) test data in the published literature: Application of statistical procedures and analysis of mutagenic potency. Mutation Res.1984;134:1–47.
13.
SakomotoYHamadaCWadaT. Statistical characterization of negative control data in the Ames test. Mutation Res.1992;272:280.
14.
JonckheereAR. A distribution-free A-sample test against ordered alternatives. Biometrika.1954;41:133–145.
15.
AkritasMGArnoldSSBrunnerE. Non-parametric hypotheses and rank statistics for unbalanced factorial designs. J Am Stat Assoc.1997.
16.
MorrisRWDietzEJ. How to perform Jonckheere's test using the CORR procedure. Proceedings of the 14th annual SAS users group international conference: 1989;1337–1339.
17.
BerryJJ. A simulation-based approach to some nonparametric statistics problems. Observations.1995;5: 19–26.
18.
NeuhäuserMHothornLA. Auswertung der Dosis-Wirkungs-Abhängigkeit des Ames Mutagenitätsassay bei direkter Kontrolle des Konsumentenrisikos. In: TrampischHJLangeS, eds. Medizinische Forschung—Ärztliches Handeln.Munich: MMV Medizin Verlag; 1995:113–116.
19.
HauschkeD. Statistical proof of safety in preclinical testing. Drug Inf J.1997;31.
