| 1. |
- Barquinero, J-F., et al.
(författare)
-
RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021 : The FISH-Based Translocation Assay
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Radiation Research. - 0033-7587 .- 1938-5404. ; 199:6, s. 583-590
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Translocation analysis using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is the method of choice for dose assessment in case of chronic or past exposures to ionizing radiation. Although it is a widespread technique, unlike dicentrics, the number of FISH-based inter-laboratory comparisons is small. For this reason, although the current Running the European Network of Biological and Physical retrospective Dosimetry (RENEB) inter-laboratory comparison 2021 was designed as a fast response to a real emergency scenario, it was considered a good opportunity to perform an inter-laboratory comparison using the FISH technique to gain further experience. The Bundeswehr Institute of Radiobiology provided peripheral blood samples from one healthy human volunteer. Three test samples were irradiated with blinded doses of 0, 1.2, and 3.5 Gy, respectively. Samples were then sent to the seven participating laboratories. The FISH technique was applied according to the standard procedure of each laboratory. Both, the frequency of translocations and the estimated dose for each sample were sent to the coordinator using a special scoring sheet for FISH. All participants sent their results in due time. However, although it was initially requested to send the results based on the full analysis, evaluating 500 equivalent cells, most laboratories only sent the results based on triage, with a smaller number of analyzed cells. In the triage analysis, there was great heterogeneity in the number of equivalent cells scored. On the contrary, for the full analysis, this number was more homogeneous. For all three samples, one laboratory showed outlier yields compared to the other laboratories. Excluding these results, in the triage analysis, the frequency of translocations in sample no. 1 ranged from 0 to 0.013 translocations per cell, and for samples no. 2 and no. 3 the genomic mean frequency were 0.27 +/- 0.03 and 1.47 +/- 0.14, with a coefficient of variation of 0.29 and 0.23 respectively. Considering only results obtained in the triage analysis for sample no. 1, all laboratories, except one, classified this sample as the non-irradiated one. For sample no. 2, excluding the outlier value, the mean reported dose was 1.74 +/- 0.16 Gy indicating a mean deviation of about 0.5 Gy to the delivered dose of 1.2 Gy. For sample no. 3 the mean dose estimated was 4.21 +/- 0.21 Gy indicating a mean deviation of about 0.7 Gy to the delivered dose of 3.5 Gy. In the frame of RENEB, this is the second FISH-based inter-laboratory comparison. The whole exercise was planned as a response to an emergency, therefore, a triage analysis was requested for all the biomarkers except for FISH. Although a full analysis was initially requested for FISH, most of the laboratories reported only a triage-based result. The main reason is that it was not clearly stated what was required before starting the exercise. Results show that most of the laboratories successfully discriminated unexposed and irradiated samples from each other without any overlap. A good agreement in the observed frequencies of translocations was observed but there was a tendency to overestimate the delivered doses. Efforts to improve the harmonization of this technique and subsequent exercises to elucidate the reason for this trend should be promoted.
|
|
| 2. |
- López Riego, Milagrosa, et al.
(författare)
-
Chromosomal damage, gene expression and alternative splicing in human lymphocytes exposed to mixed radiation as encountered in space
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Astronauts travelling in space will be exposed to mixed beams of charged particles and photons. Permissible dose exposure limits that correspond to defined cancer risk levels are calculated by multiplying absorbed doses by a radiation-type specific quality factor that reflects the biological effectiveness of the charged particle. What is not considered is the possible effect from the interaction of charged particles with photons. We have shown previously, that alpha radiation and X-rays interact resulting in DNA damage responses higher than expected based on additivity. Due to intra- and inter-donor variability the significance of the results was not certain. In order to validate the synergism, blood from two male donors was drawn at 9 time points during 3 seasons of the year and exposed to 0-2 Gy of X-rays, alpha particles or 1:1 mixture of both. DNA damage response was quantified by chromosomal aberrations analyzed in first post-treatment mitoses and by mRNA levels of 3 radiation-responsive genes FDXR, CDKN1A and MDM2 measured 24 h post exposure by qRT-PCR. The quality of response was assessed by analyzing alternative transcription using two primer pairs per gene. A consistently higher than expected effect of mixed beams was found in both donors for chromosomal aberrations and gene expression with some seasonal variability for the latter. No synergy was detected for alternative transcription. The results demonstrate that the established practice of calculating permissible dose exposure limits by assuming additivity of mixed beam dose components leads to an underestimation of the corresponding cancer risk.
|
|
| 3. |
- Meher, Prabodha Kumar, et al.
(författare)
-
Fluorescence in situ hybridisation for interphase chromosomal aberration-based biological dosimetry
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Radiation Protection Dosimetry. - 0144-8420 .- 1742-3406. ; 199:14, s. 1501-1507
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Metaphase spreads stained with Giemsa or painted with chromosome-specific probes by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) have been in use since long for retrospective dose assessment (biological dosimetry). However, in cases of accidental exposure to ionising radiation, the culturing of lymphocytes to obtain metaphase chromosomes and analysis of chromosomal aberrations is time-consuming and problematic after high radiation doses. Similarly, analysing chromosomal damage in G0/G1 cells or nondividing cells by premature chromosome condensation is laborious. Following large-scale radiological emergencies, the time required for analysis is more important than precision of dose estimate. Painting of whole chromosomes using chromosome-specific probes in interphase nuclei by the FISH technique will eliminate the time required for cell culture and allow a fast dose estimate, provided that a meaningful dose-response can be obtained by scoring the number of chromosomal domains visible in interphase nuclei. In order to test the applicability of interphase FISH for quick biological dosimetry, whole blood from a healthy donor was irradiated with 8 Gy of gamma radiation. Irradiated whole blood was kept for 2 h at 37°C to allow DNA repair and thereafter processed for FISH with probes specific for Chromosomes-1 and 2. Damaged chromosomal fragments, distinguished by extra color domains, were observed in interphase nuclei of lymphocytes irradiated with 8 Gy. These fragments were efficiently detected and quantified by the FISH technique utilising both confocal and single plane fluorescence microscopy. Furthermore, a clear dose-response curve for interphase fragments was achieved following exposure to 0, 1, 2, 4 and 8 Gy of gamma radiation. These results demonstrate interphase FISH as a promising test for biodosimetry and for studying cytogenetic effects of radiation in nondividing cells.
|
|
| 4. |
- Port, M., et al.
(författare)
-
RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021 : Inter-Assay Comparison of Eight Dosimetry Assays
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Radiation Research. - 0033-7587 .- 1938-5404. ; 199:6, s. 535-555
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Tools for radiation exposure reconstruction are required to support the medical management of radiation victims in radiological or nuclear incidents. Different biological and physical dosimetry assays can be used for various exposure scenarios to estimate the dose of ionizing radiation a person has absorbed. Regular validation of the techniques through inter-laboratory comparisons (ILC) is essential to guarantee high quality results. In the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison, the performance quality of established cytogenetic assays [dicentric chromosome assay (DCA), cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay (CBMN), stable chromosomal translocation assay (FISH) and premature chromosome condensation assay (PCC)] was tested in comparison to molecular biological assays [gamma-H2AX foci (gH2AX), gene expression (GE)] and physical dosimetry-based assays [electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR), optically or thermally stimulated luminescence (LUM)]. Three blinded coded samples (e.g., blood, enamel or mobiles) were exposed to 0, 1.2 or 3.5 Gy X-ray reference doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min). These doses roughly correspond to clinically relevant groups of unexposed to low exposed (0-1 Gy), moderately exposed (1-2 Gy, no severe acute health effects expected) and highly exposed individuals (>2 Gy, requiring early intensive medical care). In the frame of the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison, samples were sent to 86 specialized teams in 46 organizations from 27 nations for dose estimation and identification of three clinically relevant groups. The time for sending early crude reports and more precise reports was documented for each laboratory and assay where possible. The quality of dose estimates was analyzed with three different levels of granularity, 1. by calculating the frequency of correctly reported clinically relevant dose categories, 2. by determining the number of dose estimates within the uncertainty intervals recommended for triage dosimetry (+/- 0.5 Gy or +/- 1.0 Gy for doses < 2.5 Gy or > 2.5 Gy), and 3. by calculating the absolute difference (AD) of estimated doses relative to the reference doses. In total, 554 dose estimates were submitted within the 6-week period given before the exercise was closed. For samples processed with the highest priority, earliest dose estimates/categories were reported within 5-10 h of receipt for GE, gH2AX, LUM, EPR, 2-3 days for DCA, CBMN and within 6-7 days for the FISH assay. For the unirradiated control sample, the categorization in the correct clinically relevant group (0-1 Gy) as well as the allocation to the triage uncertainty interval was, with the exception of a few outliers, successfully performed for all assays. For the 3.5 Gy sample the percentage of correct classifications to the clinically relevant group (>= 2 Gy) was between 89-100% for all assays, with the exception of gH2AX. For the 1.2 Gy sample, an exact allocation to the clinically relevant group was more difficult and 0-50% or 0-48% of the estimates were wrongly classified into the lowest or highest dose categories, respectively. For the irradiated samples, the correct allocation to the triage uncertainty intervals varied considerably between assays for the 1.2 Gy (29-76%) and 3.5 Gy (17-100%) samples. While a systematic shift towards higher doses was observed for the cytogenetic-based assays, extreme outliers exceeding the reference doses 2-6 fold were observed for EPR, FISH and GE assays. These outliers were related to a particular material examined (tooth enamel for EPR assay, reported as kerma in enamel, but when converted into the proper quantity, i.e. to kerma in air, expected dose estimates could be recalculated in most cases), the level of experience of the teams (FISH) and methodological uncertainties (GE). This was the first RENEB ILC where everything, from blood sampling to irradiation and shipment of the samples, was organized and realized at the same institution, for several biological and physical retrospective dosimetry assays. Almost all assays appeared comparably applicable for the identification of unexposed and highly exposed individuals and the allocation of medical relevant groups, with the latter requiring medical support for the acute radiation scenario simulated in this exercise. However, extreme outliers or a systematic shift of dose estimates have been observed for some assays. Possible reasons will be discussed in the assay specific papers of this special issue. In summary, this ILC clearly demonstrates the need to conduct regular exercises to identify research needs, but also to identify technical problems and to optimize the design of future ILCs.
|
|
