The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Derivation and application of relative potency estimates based on in vitro bioassay results
Abstract
Relative potency (REP) estimates are widely used to characterize and compare the potency of a wide variety of samples analyzed using in vitro bioassays. Relative potency estimates are generally calculated as a simple ratio: the EC50 of a well-characterized standard divided by the EC50 of a sample. Such estimates are valid only when the dose-response curves for the sample and standard are parallel and exhibit the same maximum achievable response (efficacy). These conditions are often either violated or cannot be demonstrated. As a result, there is a need to calculate and present REPs in a manner that addresses the potential uncertainties caused by violation of the assumptions of parallelism and equal efficacy. Multiple point estimates, over the range of responses from EC20 to EC80, can be used to derive relative potency ranges (REP20–80 range). The width of a REP20–80 range is directly proportional to the degree of deviation from parallelism between sample and standard dose-response curves. Thus, REP20–80 ranges both test the assumption of parallelism and characterize the amount of uncertainty in an REP estimate resulting from deviation from parallelism. Although uncertainties due to unequal efficacy cannot be easily characterized mathematically, a systematic method for evaluating sample efficacy has been developed into a framework to guide the derivation and application of REP estimates based on in vitro bioassay results. Use of the systematic framework and REP20–80 ranges was illustrated using three sample data sets. It is hoped that the framework and discussion presented will facilitate the use of bioassay-derived REP estimates to characterize samples of both known and unknown composition without ignoring the assumptions underlying REP estimation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Gutiérrez-Moreno, R., Mota-Sanchez, D., Blanco, C. A., Whalon, M. E., Terán-Santofimio, H., Rodriguez-Maciel, J. C., & DiFonzo, C. (2019) · Journal of Economic Entomology · doi:10.1093/jee/toy372 · Cited by 387
Machala, M., Vondráček, J., Bláha, L., Ciganek, M., & Neča, J. (2001) · Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis · doi:10.1016/s1383-5718(01)00240-6 · Cited by 323
Chen, Q., Allgeier, A., Yin, D., & Hollert, H. (2019) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2019.104938 · Cited by 304
Discovery of contaminants with antagonistic activity against retinoic acid receptor in house dust
Jia, Y., Zhang, H., Hu, W., Wang, L., Kang, Q., Liu, J., Nakanishi, T., Hiromori, Y., Kimura, T., Tao, S., et al. (2022) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127847 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Villeneuve, D. L., Blankenship, A. L., & Giesy, J. P.
- Venue
- Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-11-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2835-2843
- ISSN
- 0730-7268 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8618
- OpenAlex
- W1973402545
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Derivation and application of relative potency estimates based on in vitro bioassay results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/etc.5620191131
- The paper
- Villeneuve, D. L., Blankenship, A. L., & Giesy, J. P. (2000). Derivation and application of relative potency estimates based on in vitro bioassay results. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620191131
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.