alexa Arithmetic-Geometric-Harmonic (AGH) Method of Rough Estimation of Median Lethal Dose (Ld50) Using Up and Down Procedure | OMICS International
ISSN: 2157-7609
Journal of Drug Metabolism & Toxicology
Like us on:
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Arithmetic-Geometric-Harmonic (AGH) Method of Rough Estimation of Median Lethal Dose (Ld50) Using Up and Down Procedure

Saganuwan Alhaji Saganuwan*

Department of Veterinary Physiology, Pharmacology and Biochemistry, College Of Veterinary Medicine, University Of Agriculture, P.M.B. 2373, Makurdi, Benue State, Nigeria

*Corresponding Author:
Saganuwan Alhaji Saganuwan
Department of Veterinary Physiology
Pharmacology and Biochemistry
College Of Veterinary Medicine
University Of Agriculture, P.M.B. 2373
Makurdi, Benue State, Nigeria
Tel: +2348027444269
E-mail: [email protected]

Received date: April 6,2015; Accepted date: April 29,2015; Published date: May 6,2015

Citation: Saganuwan SA, (2015) Arithmetic-Geometric-Harmonic (AGH) Method of Rough Estimation of Median Lethal Dose (Ld50) Using Up– and – Down Procedure. J Drug Metab Toxicol 6:180. doi: 10.4172/2157-7609.1000180

Copyright: © 2015 Saganuwan SA . This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Drug Metabolism & Toxicology

Abstract

Earlier methods adopted for the estimation of median lethal dose (LD50) used many animals (40 – 100). But for the up – and – down procedure, 5 – 15 animals can be used, the number I still consider high. So this paper seeks to adopt arithmetic, geometric and harmonic (AGH) mean for rough estimation of median lethal dose (LD50) using up – and – down procedure by using 2 – 6 animals that may likely give 1 – 3 reversals. The administrated doses should be summed up and the mean, standard deviation (STD) and standard error of mean (SEM) should be determined. The mean would be the LD50, whereas standard deviation would be the default dose progression and standard error of mean would provide the lower and upper boundary of the LD50, which may also serve as confidence interval. Arithmetic, geometric and harmonic means all go together harmoniously. If there is no death above 15,000 mg/kg body weight, the test agent is practically safe and that serves as the limit boundary for safety. The revised method saves time, reserves large numbers of animals that may be wasted and ignores complex mathematical manipulation involved and therefore encouraging the principles refinement, reduction and replacement (3R).

Abstract

Earlier methods adopted for the estimation of median lethal dose (LD50) used many animals (40 – 100). But for the up – and – down procedure, 5 – 15 animals can be used, the number I still consider high. So this paper seeks to adopt arithmetic, geometric and harmonic (AGH) mean for rough estimation of median lethal dose (LD50) using up – and – down procedure by using 2 – 6 animals that may likely give 1 – 3 reversals. The administrated doses should be summed up and the mean, standard deviation (STD) and standard error of mean (SEM) should be determined. The mean would be the LD50, whereas standard deviation would be the default dose progression and standard error of mean would provide the lower and upper boundary of the LD50, which may also serve as confidence interval. Arithmetic, geometric and harmonic means all go together harmoniously. If there is no death above 15,000 mg/kg body weight, the test agent is practically safe and that serves as the limit boundary for safety. The revised method saves time, reserves large numbers of animals that may be wasted and ignores complex mathematical manipulation involved and therefore encouraging the principles refinement, reduction and replacement (3R).

 

Keywords:

Median lethal dose; up-and-down-procedure; Arithmetic mean; Standard deviation; Default dose; Standard error of mean

Introduction

Median lethal dose (LD50) is the amount of test agent that can cause death in 50% of test animals. The LD50 concept was first introduced in 1927 by Trevan [1]. There are different methods used to estimate median lethal dose [2-10]. Up – and – down procedure was adopted several times [11-17]. The method involves the use of less number of animals (5 – 15), is faster and its findings are relatively comparable to the findings from other methods [18]. For all the methods, the study outcome is likely to be influenced by the choice of starting dose level(s), relative to the true LD50 value, especially in the case of shallow slopes [19]. Therefore, information on toxic effects seen only at dose levels close to a lethal dose will not be obtained [20]. Upon all the benefits being derived from the most recent and the past revised up – and – down procedure, there is hurdle of mathematical complexity involved using up – and – down procedure. Such mathematical complexity involves rough estimation of LD50 using geometric mean, maximum likelihood estimator, most confidence interval and a point estimate of the LD50, which is a high descriptor of toxicity of a chemical to a population. In order to remove all the hurdles mentioned above and decrease the number of test animals, I hereby present a simplest arithmetic method for rough estimation of LD50 using up – and – down procedure.

Revision of up – and – down procedure

Stitzel gave a hypothetical example [21-23] of how to estimate LD50 in “Test Guide Lines 425”, using up – and – Down Procedure as follows:

Number Dose (mg/kg) Survival Status
1st 200 0
2nd 260 X
3rd 200 X
4th 154 0
5th 200 0
6th 260 X
Arithmetic Mean 212.3 50% (LD50)
Standard Deviation (SD) 41 1.6 (Default dose)
Standard error of Mean (SEM) 16.7 7.9% (Confidence interval)
Geometric Mean 209 50% (LD50)
Harmonic Mean 212.3 50% (LD50)
Standard Deviation (SD) 41 1.6 (Default dose)
Standard Error of Mean 16.7 7.9% (Confidence interval)

Table 1: Stitzel hypothetical example.

Since there are three reversals, Stitzel calculated the geometric mean of all the doses and arrived at 209 mg/kg body weight [21]. My views about Stitzel estimation are: Arithmetic or harmonic mean can be used in place of geometric mean and that would give us 212.3 mg/kg body weight; Standard deviation (SD) of the either mean should serve as default dose progression which is logarithm of 41 mg/kg (1.6); and Standard error of the either mean (SEM) should also serve as lower and upper boundary of the LD50. i.e. +16.7mg/kg realizing the fact that LD50 is not fixed. So our LD50 from Stitzel example should be 212+16.7 mg/kg body weight. Hence the LD50 estimated by Stitzel [21] is within the range of my LD50. Saganuwan et al. estimated LD50 of aqueous extract of Abrus precatorius leaf using geometric mean10 as presented below:

The Geometric mean of the three reversals seen in Table 2 is 2558.8 mg/kg body weight. My views about Saganuwan et al. estimation [10] are: Arithmetic or harmonic mean can be used instead of geometric mean and that would give us 2823.7 mg/kg body weight; Standard deviation of the either mean should serve as default dose progression which is logarithm of 1193.1 mg/kg (3.1); Standard error of mean (SEM) should serve as lower and upper boundary of the LD50. i.e. + 487.2 mg/kg body weight, realizing the fact that LD50 is not fixed. Therefore, the LD50 (2823.7 + 487.2 mg/kg) reported by Saganuwan et al [10] should be between 2336.5 and 3310.9 mg/kg body weight. Hence, the LD50 of Saganuwan et al. falls within the range of my LD50.

No. Dose (mg/kg) Survival Status
1st 2559.5 X
2nd 974.5 O
3rd 2559.5 O
4th 4144.5 X
5th 2559.5 0
6th 4144.5 X
Arithmetic Mean 2823.7 50% (LD50)
Standard Deviation (SD) 1193.1 3.1 (Default dose)
Standard error of Mean (SEM) 487.2 17.2% (Confidence interval)
Geometric Mean 2558.8 50% (LD50)
Harmonic Mean 2823.7 50% (LD50)
Standard Deviation (SD) 1193.1 3.1% (Default dose)
Standard Error of Mean 487.2 17.2% (Confidence interval)

Table 2: Toxicity pattern of Abrus precarious leaf extract

Discussion

The LD50 (209 mg/kg) estimated by Stitzel [23] is within the range of my estimated LD50 (205 to 229.0 mg/kg) signifying that arithmetic mean of three reversals can be used as rough estimate of LD50 and standard deviation can be used as default dose progression, whereas standard error of mean can serve as lower and upper boundary of the mean which may in turn represent confidence interval. But the LD50 (2558.8 mg/kg) estimated from Saganuwan et al. [10] is within the estimated range of my LD50 (2336.5 to 3310.9 mg/kg body weight). Saganuwan et al. [10, 22] and Saganuwan [9, 18] had earlier reported that median lethal dose of aqueous extract of Abrus precatorius leaf is between 2559.5 and 3011.4 mg/kg body weight. Therefore, there is precision, validity and reliability of using arithmetic mean as rough estimate of LD50, standard deviation as default dose progression and standard error of mean as lower and upper boundary. The arithmetic, geometric and harmonic means are Pythagorean means. In their calculating, the arithmetic mean is greater than or equal to the geometric mean, which is greater than or equal to the harmonic mean. The geometric mean is particularly appropriate for exponential type of data. The harmonic mean is good for things like rates and ratios where an arithmetic mean would actually be incorrect. But when the sample size is unequal, the far and away most common procedure uses the harmonic mean of sample sizes. As a result, an unbalanced design will have less statistical power because the average samplesize will tend toward the least sample. The mean uses every value in the data and hence is a good representative of the data. Repeated samples drawn from the sample population tend to have similar means. The mean is therefore the measure of central tendency that best resists the fluctuation between different samples [25]. It is closely related to standard deviations, the most common measure of dispersion [24]. The important disadvantage of mean is that it is sensitive to extreme values/outliers, especially when the sample size is small [26]. Therefore, it is not an appropriate measure of central tendency for skewed distribution [27]. Harmonic mean is appropriate in situations where the reciprocals of values are more useful. It is used for determination of the average sample size of a number of groups, each of which has a different sample size. Geometric mean is an appropriate measure when values change exponentially and in case of skewed distribution that can be made symmetrical by a log transformation. It cannot be used if any of the values are zero or negative [24]. However, because small numbers of animals were used, the actual level of confidence was generally not exact [22]. The random stopping rule in UDP improves the ability of the test overall to respond to varying underlying conditions, but also causes the reported level of confidence and the actual level of confidence to differ somewhat [23]. Of all the principles of the three alternatives (fixed dose; acute toxic class and up – and - down), up – and – down, is the most suitable, because it gives endpoint – evident toxicity and obeys stopping criteria to limit number of animals used, using only 2 – 6 animals with possible 1 – 3 deaths [24]. If there is no death above 15,000 mg/kg body weight, the test agent is practically safe and that serves as the limit boundary for safety [28-30]. The revised method saves time, reserves large numbers of animals that may be waisted and ignores complex mathematical manipulation involved and so encouraging the principles of refinement, reduction and replacement (3R).

In conclusion, either arithmetic or harmonic mean can be used in place of geometric mean as rough estimate of median lethal dose (LD50) using up-and-down procedure since arithmetic, geometric and harmonic means go together harmoniously.

References

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Recommended Conferences

Article Usage

  • Total views: 12179
  • [From(publication date):
    July-2015 - Feb 26, 2018]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 8348
  • PDF downloads : 3831
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2018-19
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri & Aquaculture Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Clinical Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Food & Nutrition Journals

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics & Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Nursing & Health Care Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

Ann Jose

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

 
© 2008- 2018 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version