Literature DB >> 16414088

Radiation-induced bystander effects and the DNA paradigm: an "out of field" perspective.

Carmel Mothersill1, C B Seymour.   

Abstract

Over the past 20 years there has been increasing evidence that cells and the progeny of cells surviving a very low dose of ionizing radiation [micro-mGy] can exhibit a wide range of non-monotonic effects such as adaptive responses, low dose hypersensitivity and other delayed effects. These effects are inconsistent with the expected dose-response, when based on extrapolation of high dose data and cast doubt on the reliability of extrapolating from high dose data to predict low dose effects. Recently the cause of many of these effects has been tentatively ascribed to so-called "bystander effects". These are effects that occur in cells not directly hit by an ionizing track but which are influenced by signals from irradiated cells and are thus highly relevant in situations where the dose is very low. Not all bystander effects may be deleterious although most endpoints measured involve cell damage or death. In this commentary, we consider how these effects impact the historical central dogma of radiobiology and radiation protection, which is that DNA double strand breaks are the primary radiation-induced lesion which can be quantifiably related to received dose and which determine the probability that a cancer will result from a radiation exposure. We explore the low dose issues and the evidence and conclude that in the very low dose region, the primary determinant of radiation exposure outcome is the genetic and epigenetic background of the individual and not solely the dose. What this does is to dissociate dose from effect as a quantitative relationship, but it does not necessarily mean that the effect is ultimately unrelated to DNA damage. The fundamental thesis we present is that at low doses fundamentally different mechanisms underlie radiation action and that at these doses, effect is not quantitatively related to dose.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16414088     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2005.10.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutat Res        ISSN: 0027-5107            Impact factor:   2.433


  38 in total

1.  Signalling of DNA damage and cytokines across cell barriers exposed to nanoparticles depends on barrier thickness.

Authors:  A Sood; S Salih; D Roh; L Lacharme-Lora; M Parry; B Hardiman; R Keehan; R Grummer; E Winterhager; P J Gokhale; P W Andrews; C Abbott; K Forbes; M Westwood; J D Aplin; E Ingham; I Papageorgiou; M Berry; J Liu; A D Dick; R J Garland; N Williams; R Singh; A K Simon; M Lewis; J Ham; L Roger; D M Baird; L A Crompton; M A Caldwell; H Swalwell; M Birch-Machin; G Lopez-Castejon; A Randall; H Lin; M-S Suleiman; W H Evans; R Newson; C P Case
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2011-11-06       Impact factor: 39.213

2.  Extreme anti-oxidant protection against ionizing radiation in bdelloid rotifers.

Authors:  Anita Krisko; Magali Leroy; Miroslav Radman; Matthew Meselson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Reduction-oxidation (redox) system in radiation-induced normal tissue injury: molecular mechanisms and implications in radiation therapeutics.

Authors:  R Yahyapour; E Motevaseli; A Rezaeyan; H Abdollahi; B Farhood; M Cheki; S Rezapoor; D Shabeeb; A E Musa; M Najafi; V Villa
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2018-01-09       Impact factor: 3.405

4.  Cytogenetic effects of low-dose radiation with different LET in human peripheral blood lymphocytes.

Authors:  E A Nasonova; N L Shmakova; O V Komova; L A Mel'nikova; T A Fadeeva; E A Krasavin; S Ritter
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2006-10-10       Impact factor: 1.925

Review 5.  Systems biology and its potential role in radiobiology.

Authors:  Ludwig Feinendegen; Philip Hahnfeldt; Eric E Schadt; Michael Stumpf; Eberhard O Voit
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2007-12-18       Impact factor: 1.925

6.  A perspective on the scientific, philosophical, and policy dimensions of hormesis.

Authors:  George R Hoffmann
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2009-01-19       Impact factor: 2.658

7.  The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data.

Authors:  Maurice Tubiana; Ludwig E Feinendegen; Chichuan Yang; Joseph M Kaminski
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Investigation of non-linear adaptive responses and split dose recovery induced by ionizing radiation in three human epithelial derived cell lines.

Authors:  Lorna A Ryan; Colin B Seymour; Carmel E Mothersill
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2009-08-06       Impact factor: 2.658

9.  Nanoparticles can cause DNA damage across a cellular barrier.

Authors:  Gevdeep Bhabra; Aman Sood; Brenton Fisher; Laura Cartwright; Margaret Saunders; William Howard Evans; Annmarie Surprenant; Gloria Lopez-Castejon; Stephen Mann; Sean A Davis; Lauren A Hails; Eileen Ingham; Paul Verkade; Jon Lane; Kate Heesom; Roger Newson; Charles Patrick Case
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 39.213

Review 10.  Ionizing radiation from computed tomography versus anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging in infants and children: patient safety considerations.

Authors:  Michael J Callahan; Robert D MacDougall; Sarah D Bixby; Stephan D Voss; Richard L Robertson; Joseph P Cravero
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2017-11-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.