Skip to content

3-Parameter Logistic Dose-Response (3PL)

Pharmacology

Fits a three-parameter sigmoid dose-response curve to estimate the IC50/EC50, Hill slope, and maximum response, with the baseline (bottom) fixed at zero.

When to Use

Use this model when your data have been normalised to a zero baseline (e.g., 0% inhibition or 0% response at the lowest dose) and you want to estimate the dose producing 50% of the maximum effect. Common in pharmacology for potency ranking of compounds where the baseline response is known.

Assumptions

  • The dose-response relationship follows a monotonic sigmoid curve.
  • The bottom asymptote is fixed at zero (data are normalised to baseline).
  • You have a sufficient range of doses to bracket the IC50/EC50 value.
  • At least 4 distinct dose levels are included, with replicates at each level for reliable fitting.
  • Residuals around the fitted curve are approximately normally distributed with constant variance.

Required Inputs

InputTypeNotes
Dose / ConcentrationNumericX-axis values, must be positive (often on a log scale)
ResponseNumericY-axis values (measured response, typically normalised 0-100%)

Output Metrics

MetricWhat it means
IC50 / EC50The dose that produces 50% of the maximum response. The central measure of potency.
IC50 SEStandard error of the IC50 estimate.
IC50 95% CL LowerLower bound of the 95% confidence interval for IC50.
IC50 95% CL UpperUpper bound of the 95% confidence interval for IC50.
pIC50Negative log10 of IC50: pIC50 = -log10(IC50). Higher values indicate greater potency.
Hill SlopeSteepness of the dose-response curve at the inflection point. A slope of 1 is a standard Michaelis-Menten curve.
TopMaximum response (upper asymptote).
R-SquaredProportion of variance in the response explained by the model.
Adj R-SquaredR-squared adjusted for the number of parameters.
RMSERoot mean squared error of the residuals.
AICAkaike Information Criterion for model comparison (lower is better).
BICBayesian Information Criterion for model comparison (lower is better).
Confidence BandsModel-based confidence bands for predicted responses across dose values.

Interpretation

  • The IC50 is the most important output: it tells you the dose needed for half-maximal effect. Lower IC50 means higher potency.
  • Use pIC50 (-log10 of IC50) for potency ranking. A compound with pIC50 = 7 is 10-fold more potent than one with pIC50 = 6.
  • The Hill slope describes how steeply the response changes around the IC50. A slope > 1 indicates positive cooperativity; a slope < 1 indicates negative cooperativity.
  • Compare 3PL and 4PL models using AIC/BIC. If the 4PL model does not substantially improve the fit (lower AIC/BIC), the simpler 3PL is preferred.
  • Wide confidence intervals around IC50 suggest the data do not constrain the estimate well. Consider adding doses near the expected IC50.

Common Pitfalls

  • Fixing the bottom at zero is only valid if data are normalised. Using raw (unnormalised) data with a 3PL model forces an incorrect baseline, biasing the IC50.
  • If data do not reach a clear plateau at high doses, the top parameter is poorly estimated, which propagates uncertainty to the IC50.
  • Too few dose levels or inadequate dose range make the curve fitting unreliable. The IC50 should ideally fall within your tested dose range.
  • Outliers at extreme doses can disproportionately affect the curve shape. Inspect the fitted curve visually alongside the data.

How It Works

  1. Define the 3PL model: Response = Top / (1 + (IC50/Dose)^HillSlope), with Bottom fixed at 0.
  2. Use non-linear least squares optimisation to find the values of Top, IC50, and Hill Slope that minimise the sum of squared residuals between observed and predicted responses.
  3. Compute confidence intervals for each parameter from the covariance matrix of the estimates.
  4. Calculate goodness-of-fit metrics (R-squared, AIC, BIC) to evaluate model adequacy.

Citations

References

  • Hill, A. V. (1910). The possible effects of the aggregation of the molecules of haemoglobin on its dissociation curves. Journal of Physiology, 40, iv-vii.
  • Gaddum, J. H. (1953). Bioassays and mathematics. Pharmacological Reviews, 5(2), 87-134.
  • Ritz, C., Baty, F., Streibig, J. C., & Gerhard, D. (2015). Dose-response analysis using R. PLoS ONE, 10(12), e0146021.