How prevalent is chemical hormesis in the natural and experimental worlds?

Hormesis is described as a biological phenomenon showing bidirectional (biphasic) responses to chemical or other stressors: stimulation at low doses and inhibition at high doses or vice-versa. The label applies to either radiation or chemical hormesis. This review addresses certain critical but persisting quantitative questions about chemical hormesis. For example, what is its actual generalizability in nature? Is hormesis generalizable enough to figure in risk analysis and regulatory efforts within human or ecological toxicant exposures? No evidence exists to show that chemical hormesis is a universally distributed biological phenomenon within some law, rule or principle (100% frequency) nor is there a reliable and consistent body of evidence that leads to identifying some significant and reproducible value for frequency of occurrence below the universality standard, i.e., < 100% frequency. Lack of reliable and/or consistent evidence arises from diverse limits to study methods, i.e., methods were post-hoc evaluations of published data gathered for other purposes and using ad-hoc characterization approaches, rather than doing new studies. The literature selected for generalizability analyses has not been systematically pre-evaluated as a scientifically reliable representation of hormesis frequency in nature. Furthermore, database evaluations have used certain criteria not validated for this specific purpose, so that metric and what was measured are objects of scrutiny and ambiguity. Finally, simultaneous estimates of frequency of non-hormetic dose–response relationships, required for reliable determinations of hormesis frequency, were not done in these analyses. Chemical hormesis frequency estimates vary with conditions for characterization. For all these reasons, chemical hormesis still has limited use in health policy and regulatory thinking. - Highlights: ► Hormesis is not a universally distributed biological phenomenon (100% frequency). ► There is also no high and consistently reproducible frequency below 100%. ► Limited databases and questionable methodologies account for unstable frequencies. ► Hormesis frequency does not support its use in human or ecological risk assessment