{"doi":"10.1002/em.21785","title":"Adaptive response to hydrogen peroxide in yeast: Induction, time course, and relationship to dose–response models","abstract":"<jats:p>The assay for <jats:italic>trp5</jats:italic> gene conversion and <jats:italic>ilv1‐92</jats:italic> reversion in <jats:italic>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</jats:italic> strain D7 was used to characterize the induction of an adaptive response by hydrogen peroxide (H<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>O<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>). Effects of a small priming dose on the genotoxic effects of a larger challenge dose were measured in exponential cultures and in early stationary phase. An adaptive response, indicated by smaller convertant and revertant frequencies after the priming dose, occurred at lower priming and challenge doses in young, well‐aerated cultures. Closely spaced priming doses from 0.000975 to 2 mM, followed by a 1 mM challenge, showed that the induction of the adaptive response is biphasic. In exponential cultures it was maximal with a priming dose of 0.125–0.25 mM. Very small priming doses were insufficient to induce the adaptive response, whereas higher doses contributed to damage. A significant adaptive response was detected when the challenge dose was administered 10–20 min after the priming exposure. It was fully expressed within 45 min, and the yeast began to return to the nonadapted state after 4–6 hr. Because of the similarity of the biphasic induction to hormetic curves and the proposal that adaptive responses are a manifestation of hormesis, we evaluated whether the low doses of H<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>O<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> that induce the adaptive response show a clear hormetic response without a subsequent challenge dose. Hormesis was not evident, but there was an apparent threshold for genotoxicity at or slightly below 0.125 mM. The results are discussed with respect to linear, threshold, and hormesis dose–response models. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 54:384–396, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</jats:p>","journal":"Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis","year":2013,"id":46821,"datarank":0.7255016825865891,"base_score":2.4849066497880004,"endowment":2.4849066497880004,"self_citation_contribution":0.37273599746820013,"citation_network_contribution":0.35276568511838896,"self_endowment_contribution":0.37273599746820013,"citer_contribution":0.35276568511838896,"corpus_percentile":null,"corpus_rank":null,"citation_count":11,"citer_count":11,"citers_with_citation_signal":10,"citers_with_endowment":10,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":false,"is_dataset_confidence":null,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":false,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":null,"fair_score":null,"fair_percentile":null,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":216560,"name":"Andrew V. Moczula","orcid":null,"position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":216561,"name":"Amanda M. Laterza","orcid":null,"position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":216562,"name":"Lindsey K. MacNeil","orcid":null,"position":3,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":216563,"name":"Jason P. Tartaglione","orcid":null,"position":4,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":216559,"name":"George R. Hoffmann","orcid":null,"position":0,"is_corresponding":false}],"reference_count":0,"raw_metadata":{"has_enrichment":true,"resolved":true,"title":"Adaptive response to hydrogen peroxide in yeast: Induction, time course, and relationship to dose–response models","abstract":"<jats:p>The assay for <jats:italic>trp5</jats:italic> gene conversion and <jats:italic>ilv1‐92</jats:italic> reversion in <jats:italic>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</jats:italic> strain D7 was used to characterize the induction of an adaptive response by hydrogen peroxide (H<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>O<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>). Effects of a small priming dose on the genotoxic effects of a larger challenge dose were measured in exponential cultures and in early stationary phase. An adaptive response, indicated by smaller convertant and revertant frequencies after the priming dose, occurred at lower priming and challenge doses in young, well‐aerated cultures. Closely spaced priming doses from 0.000975 to 2 mM, followed by a 1 mM challenge, showed that the induction of the adaptive response is biphasic. In exponential cultures it was maximal with a priming dose of 0.125–0.25 mM. Very small priming doses were insufficient to induce the adaptive response, whereas higher doses contributed to damage. A significant adaptive response was detected when the challenge dose was administered 10–20 min after the priming exposure. It was fully expressed within 45 min, and the yeast began to return to the nonadapted state after 4–6 hr. Because of the similarity of the biphasic induction to hormetic curves and the proposal that adaptive responses are a manifestation of hormesis, we evaluated whether the low doses of H<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>O<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> that induce the adaptive response show a clear hormetic response without a subsequent challenge dose. Hormesis was not evident, but there was an apparent threshold for genotoxicity at or slightly below 0.125 mM. The results are discussed with respect to linear, threshold, and hormesis dose–response models. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 54:384–396, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</jats:p>","is_dataset_classified":null,"base_score":2.4849066497880004,"endowment":2.4849066497880004,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"views":0,"has_version_chain":false,"is_dataset":false,"is_oa":false,"pmid":"23740476","pmcid":null,"openalex_id":"https://openalex.org/W1570699364","authors":[],"funders":[],"total_grants":0,"fwci":0.5724,"citation_percentile":0.69547088,"influential_citations":1,"citation_trend":[{"year":2014,"count":2},{"year":2015,"count":1},{"year":2016,"count":2},{"year":2018,"count":1},{"year":2020,"count":1},{"year":2022,"count":2},{"year":2025,"count":2}],"oa_status":"closed","license":"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor","oa_locations":[{"url":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/em.21785","host_type":"BRONZE"},{"url":"https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fem.21785","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/em.21785","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://doi.org/10.1002/em.21785","host_type":"journal"},{"url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23740476","host_type":"repository"}],"fields_of_study":["Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment","Effects of Radiation Exposure","bioluminescence and chemiluminescence research","Medicine","Biology","Adaptation, Physiological","DNA Damage","Dose-Response Relationship, Drug","Hydrogen Peroxide","Mutagens","Oxidative Stress","Saccharomyces cerevisiae"],"mesh_terms":["Adaptation, Physiological","DNA Damage","Dose-Response Relationship, Drug","Hydrogen Peroxide","Mutagens","Saccharomyces cerevisiae","Oxidative Stress"],"keywords":["Hormesis","Adaptive response","Priming (agriculture)","Hydrogen peroxide","Dose–response relationship","Biology","Exponential growth","Genotoxicity","Pharmacology","Toxicology","Toxicity","Chemistry","Biochemistry","Medicine","Internal medicine","Genetics","Oxidative stress","Botany","Biphasic","Genotoxicity Threshold"],"sdg_mappings":[],"linked_datasets":[],"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"database_accessions":[],"source":"live","citation_network_status":"fetched"},"created_at":"2026-07-14T18:55:52.645600Z","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":null,"fair_a":null,"fair_i":null,"fair_r":null,"fair_zscore":null,"fair_rationale":null,"fair_model":null,"fair_agent_version":null,"fair_fulltext_source":null,"fair_has_llm":null,"fair_computed_at":null,"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}