Table of Recommended Best-Fit Parameters

From QMRAwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Please click on the tab headings to navigate betweeen tabs.| We generally recommend a single dose response model, and we justify the decision in terms of these criteria. This decision is somewhat subjective, since dose response datasets seldom meet all of these criteria. If all available models are unsatisfactory, we choose a single model to ‘recommend with reservations’. Our recommended model will seldom (if ever) be the best model for all applications. The user should carefully choose the model that is most appropriate for their particular problem.
*Please click on the tab headings to navigate between tabs.

[edit]
Agent Best fit model* Optimized parameter(s) LD50/ID50 Host type Agent strain Route # of doses Dose units Response Reference
Bacillus anthracis: Dose Response Models exponential k = 1.65E-05 4.2E+04 guinea pig Vollum inhalation 4 spores death Druett 1953
Burkholderia pseudomallei: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α = 3.28E-01 , N50 = 5.43E+03 5.43E+03 C57BL/6 mice and diabetic rat KHW,316c intranasal,intraperitoneal 10 CFU death Liu, Koo et al. 2002 and Brett and Woods 1996
Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α= 1.44E-01 , N50 = 8.9E+02 8.9E+02 human strain A3249 oral (in milk) 6 CFU infection Black et al 1988
Coxiella burnetii: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α= 3.57E-01 , N50 = 4.93E+08 4.93E+08 C57BL/1OScN mice phase I Ohio intraperitoneal 10 PFU death Williams et al, 1982
Escherichia coli enterohemorrhagic (EHEC): Dose Response Models exponential k=2.18E-04 3.18E+03 pig EHEC O157:H7, strain 86-24 oral (in food) 3 CFU shedding in feces Cornick & Helgerson (2004)
Escherichia coli: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α = 1.55E-01 , N50 = 2.11E+06 2.11E+06 human EIEC 1624 oral (in milk) 3 CFU positive stool isolation DuPont et al. (1971)
Francisella tularensis: Dose Response Models exponential k = 4.73E-02 1.46E+01 monkeys SCHU S-4 inhalation 4 CFU death Day and Berendt, 1972
Legionella pneumophila: Dose Response Models exponential k = 5.99E-02 1.16E+01 guinea pig Philadelphia 1 inhalation 4 CFU infection Muller et al. (1983)
Listeria monocytogenes (Death as response): Dose Response Models exponential k = 1.15E-05 6.05E+04 C57B1/6J mice F5817 oral 6 CFU death Golnazarian, Donnelly et al. 1989
Listeria monocytogenes (Infection): Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α = 2.53E-01 , N50 = 2.77E+02 2.77E+02 C57Bl/6J mice F5817 oral 10 CFU infection Golnazarian
Listeria monocytogenes (Stillbirths): Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α = 4.22E-02 , N50 = 1.78E+09 1.78E+09 pooled oral 13 CFU stillbirths Smith, Williams2007
Mycobacterium avium: Dose Response Models exponential k = 6.93E-04 1E+03 deer sub sp. Paratuberculosis Bovine oral 3 CFU infection O'Brien et al(1976)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Contact lens): Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α = 1.9E-01 , N50 = 1.85E+04 1.85E+04 white rabbit contact lens 10 CFU corneal ulceration Lawin-Brussel et al. (1993)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (bacterimia): Dose Response Models exponential k = 1.05E-04 6.61E+03 Swiss webster mice (5day old) ATCC 19660 injected in eyelids 12 CFU death Hazlett, Rosen et al. 1978
Rickettsia rickettsi: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α= 7.77E-01 , N50 = 2.13E+01 2.13E+01 Pooled data R1 and Sheila Smith NA 27 CFU morbidity Saslaw and Carlisle 1966 and Dupont, Hornick et al. 1973
Salmonella Typhi: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α = 1.75E-01 , N50 = 1.11E+06 1.11E+06 human Quailes oral, in milk 8 CFU disease Hornick et al. (1966),Hornick et al. (1970)
Salmonella anatum: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α= 3.18E-01 , N50 = 3.71E+04 3.71E+04 human strain I oral, with eggnog 16 CFU positive stool culture McCullough and Elsele,1951
Salmonella meleagridis: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α= 3.89E-01 , N50 = 1.68E+04 1.68E+04 human strain I oral, with eggnog 11 CFU infection McCullough and Eisele 1951,2
Salmonella nontyphoid: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α= 2.1E-01 , N50 = 4.98E+01 4.98E+01 mice strain 216 and 219 intraperitoneal 10 CFU death Meynell and Meynell,1958
Salmonella serotype newport: Dose Response Models exponential k = 3.97E-06 1.74E+05 human Salmonella newport oral 3 CFU infection McCullough and Elsele,1951
Shigella: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α= 2.65E-01 , N50 = 1.48E+03 1.48E+03 human 2a (strain 2457T) oral (in milk) 4 CFU positive stool isolation DuPont et al. (1972b)
Staphylococcus aureus: Dose Response Models exponential k = 7.64E-08 9.08E+06 human subcutaneous 6 CFU/cm2 infection Rose and Haas 1999
TestPage exponential k = 1.65E-05 4.2E+04 guinea pig Vollum inhalation 4 spores death Druett 1953
Vibrio cholerae: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α= 2.50E-01 , N50 = 2.43E+02 2.43E+02 human Inaba 569B oral (with NaHCO3) 6 CFU infection Hornick et al., (1971)
Yersinia pestis: Dose Response Models exponential k = 1.63E-03 4.26E+02 mice CO92 intranasal 4 CFU death Lathem et al. 2005

*These models are preferred in most circumstances. However, consider all available models to decide which one is most appropriate for your analysis. 

Agent Best fit model* Optimized parameter(s) LD50/ID50 Host type Agent strain Route # of doses Dose units Response Reference
Adenovirus: Dose Response Models exponential k = 6.07E-01 1.14E+00 human type 4 inhalation 4 TCID50 infection Couch, Cate et al. 1966
Echovirus: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α = 1.06E+00 , N50 = 9.22E+02 9.22E+02 human strain 12 oral 4 PFU infection Schiff et al.,1984
Enteroviruses: Dose Response Models exponential k = 3.74E-03 1.85E+02 pig porcine, PE7-05i oral 3 PFU infection Cliver, 1981
Influenza: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α = 5.81E-01 , N50 =9.45E+05 9.45E+05 human H1N1,A/California/10/78 attenuated strain,
H3N2,A/Washington/897/80 attenuated strain
intranasal 9 TCID50 infection Murphy et al., 1984 & Murphy et al., 1985
Lassa virus: Dose Response Models exponential k = 2.95E+00 2.35E-01 guinea pig Josiah strain subcutaneous 6 PFU death Jahrling et al., 1982
Poliovirus: Dose Response Models exponential k = 4.91E-01 1.41E+00 human type 1,attenuated oral (capsule) 3 PD50 (mouse paralytic doses) alimentary infection Koprowski
Rhinovirus: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α = 2.21E-01 , N50 = 1.81E+00 1.81E+00 human type 39 intranasal 6 TCID50 doses infection Hendley et al., 1972
Rotavirus: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α = 2.53E-01 , N50 = 6.17E+00 6.17E+00 human CJN strain (unpassaged) oral 8 FFU infection Ward et al, 1986
SARS: Dose Response Models exponential k = 2.46E-03 2.82E+02 mice hACE-2 and A/J rSARS-CoV intranasal 8 PFU death DeDiego et al., 2008 & De Albuquerque et al., 2006

*These models are preferred in most circumstances. However, consider all available models to decide which one is most appropriate for your analysis. 

Agent Best fit model* Optimized parameter(s) LD50/ID50 Host type Agent strain Route # of doses Dose units Response Reference
Cryptosporidium parvum and Cryptosporidium hominis: Dose Response Models exponential k = 5.72E-02 1.21E+01 human TAMU isolate oral 4 oocysts infection Messner et al. 2001
Endamoeba coli: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α = 1.01E-01 , N50 = 3.41E+02 3.41E+02 human From an infected human oral 5 Cysts infection Rendtorff 1954
Giardia duodenalis: Dose Response Models exponential k = 1.99E-02 3.48E+01 human From an infected human oral 8 Cysts infection Rendtorff 1954
Naegleria fowleri: Dose Response Models exponential k = 3.42E-07 2.03E+06 mice LEE strain intravenous 7 no of trophozoites death Adams et al. 1976 & Haggerty and John 1978

*These models are preferred in most circumstances. However, consider all available models to decide which one is most appropriate for your analysis. 

Agent Best fit model* Optimized parameter(s) LD50/ID50 Host type Agent strain Route # of doses Dose units Response Reference
PrP prions: Dose Response Models beta-Poisson α = 1.76E+00 , N50 = 1.04E+05 1.04E+05 hamsters scrapie strain 263k oral 5 LD50 i.c. death Diringer et al. 1998

*These models are preferred in most circumstances. However, consider all available models to decide which one is most appropriate for your analysis. 

We prefer dose response models with the following criteria, in rough order of importance:

  1. Statistically acceptable fit (fail to reject goodness of fit, p > 0.05)
  2. Human subjects, or animal models that mimic human pathophysiology well
  3. Infection as the response, rather than disease, symptoms, or death
  4. Exposure route similar/identical to the exposure route of natural infection
  5. Pathogen strain is similar to strains causing natural infection
  6. Pooled model using data from 2 or more experiments, provided the data sets are statistically similar (fail to reject that datasets are from the same distribution, p > 0.05)
  7. Low ID50/LD50 (to obtain a conservative risk estimate)

We generally recommend a single dose response model, and we justify the decision in terms of the above criteria. This decision is somewhat subjective, since dose response datasets seldom meet all of these criteria. If all available models are unsatisfactory, we choose a single model to ‘recommend with reservations’. Our recommended model will seldom (if ever) be the best model for all applications. The user should carefully choose the model that is most appropriate for their particular problem.