PURPOSE: To assess the chromosomal breakpoint distribution in human peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) after exposure to a low dose of high linear energy transfer (LET) alpha-particles using the technique of multiplex fluorescence in situ hybridization (m-FISH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Separated PBL were exposed in G0 to 0.5 Gy 238Pu alpha-particles, stimulated to divide and harvested approximately 48 - 50 hours after exposure. Metaphase cells were assayed by m-FISH and chromosome breaks identified. The observed distribution of breaks were then compared with expected distributions of breaks, calculated on the assumption that the distribution of breaks is random with regard to either chromosome volume or chromosome surface area. RESULTS: More breaks than expected were observed on chromosomes 2 and 11, however no particular region of either chromosome was identified as significantly contributing to this over-representation. The identification of hot or cold chromosome regions (pter,p,cen,q,qter) varied depending on whether the data were compared according to chromosome volume or surface area. CONCLUSIONS: A deviation from randomness in chromosome breakpoint distribution was observed, and this was greatest when data were compared according to the relative surface area of each individual chromosome (or region). The identification of breaks by m-FISH (i.e., more efficient observation of interchanges than intrachanges) and importance of territorial boundaries on interchange formation are thought to contribute to these differences. The significance of the observed non-random distribution of breaks on chromosomes 2 and 11 in relation to chromatin organization is unclear.
PURPOSE: To assess the chromosomal breakpoint distribution in human peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) after exposure to a low dose of high linear energy transfer (LET) alpha-particles using the technique of multiplex fluorescence in situ hybridization (m-FISH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Separated PBL were exposed in G0 to 0.5 Gy 238Pu alpha-particles, stimulated to divide and harvested approximately 48 - 50 hours after exposure. Metaphase cells were assayed by m-FISH and chromosome breaks identified. The observed distribution of breaks were then compared with expected distributions of breaks, calculated on the assumption that the distribution of breaks is random with regard to either chromosome volume or chromosome surface area. RESULTS: More breaks than expected were observed on chromosomes 2 and 11, however no particular region of either chromosome was identified as significantly contributing to this over-representation. The identification of hot or cold chromosome regions (pter,p,cen,q,qter) varied depending on whether the data were compared according to chromosome volume or surface area. CONCLUSIONS: A deviation from randomness in chromosome breakpoint distribution was observed, and this was greatest when data were compared according to the relative surface area of each individual chromosome (or region). The identification of breaks by m-FISH (i.e., more efficient observation of interchanges than intrachanges) and importance of territorial boundaries on interchange formation are thought to contribute to these differences. The significance of the observed non-random distribution of breaks on chromosomes 2 and 11 in relation to chromatin organization is unclear.