Literature DB >> 19330141

Responses to low doses of ionizing radiation in biological systems.

Ludwig E Feinendegen1, Myron Pollycove, Charles A Sondhaus.   

Abstract

Biological tissues operate through cells that act together within signaling networks. These assure coordinated cell function in the face of constant exposure to an array of potentially toxic agents, externally from the environment and endogenously from metabolism. Living tissues are indeed complex adaptive systems.To examine tissue effects specific for low-dose radiation, (1) absorbed dose in tissue is replaced by the sum of the energies deposited by each track event, or hit, in a cell-equivalent tissue micromass (1 ng) in all micromasses exposed, that is, by the mean energy delivered by all microdose hits in the exposed micromasses, with cell dose expressing the total energy per micromass from multiple microdoses; and (2) tissue effects are related to cell damage and protective cellular responses per average microdose hit from a given radiation quality for all such hits in the exposed micromasses.The probability of immediate DNA damage per low-linear-energy-transfer (LET) average micro-dose hit is extremely small, increasing over a certain dose range in proportion to the number of hits. Delayed temporary adaptive protection (AP) involves (a) induced detoxification of reactive oxygen species, (b) enhanced rate of DNA repair, (c) induced removal of damaged cells by apoptosis followed by normal cell replacement and by cell differentiation, and (d) stimulated immune response, all with corresponding changes in gene expression. These AP categories may last from less than a day to weeks and be tested by cell responses against renewed irradiation. They operate physiologically against nonradiogenic, largely endogenous DNA damage, which occurs abundantly and continually. Background radiation damage caused by rare microdose hits per micromass is many orders of magnitude less frequent. Except for apoptosis, AP increasingly fails above about 200 mGy of low-LET radiation, corresponding to about 200 microdose hits per exposed micromass. This ratio appears to exceed approximately 1 per day for protracted exposure. The balance between damage and protection favors protection at low cell doses and damage at high cell doses. Bystander effects from high-dosed cells to nonirradiated neighboring cells appear to include both damage and protection.Regarding oncogenesis, a model based on the aforementioned dual response pattern at low doses and dose rates is consistant with the nonlinear reponse data and contradicts the linear no-threshold dose-risk hypothesis for radiation-induced cancer. Indeed, a dose-cancer risk function should include both linear and nonlinear terms.

Entities:  

Keywords:  hormesis; radiation low-dose effects

Year:  2004        PMID: 19330141      PMCID: PMC2657485          DOI: 10.1080/15401420490507431

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nonlinearity Biol Toxicol Med        ISSN: 1540-1421


  89 in total

1.  The bystander effect in radiation oncogenesis: I. Transformation in C3H 10T1/2 cells in vitro can be initiated in the unirradiated neighbors of irradiated cells.

Authors:  S G Sawant; G Randers-Pehrson; C R Geard; D J Brenner ; E J Hall
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 2.841

2.  Adaptive response and the influence of ageing: effects of low-dose irradiation on cell growth of cultured glial cells.

Authors:  Y Miura; K Abe; S Urano; T Furuse; Y Noda; K Tatsumi; S Suzuki
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 2.694

3.  Bystander-induced apoptosis and premature differentiation in primary urothelial explants after charged particle microbeam irradiation.

Authors:  O V Belyakov; M Folkard; C Mothersill; K M Prise; B D Michael
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 0.972

4.  No lengthening of life span in mice continuously exposed to gamma rays at very low dose rates.

Authors:  S Tanaka; I B Tanaka; S Sasagawa; K Ichinohe; T Takabatake; S Matsushita; T Matsumoto; H Otsu; F Sato
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.841

5.  Aging: a theory based on free radical and radiation chemistry.

Authors:  D HARMAN
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1956-07

6.  Inducible repair of thymine glycol detected by an ultrasensitive assay for DNA damage.

Authors:  X C Le; J Z Xing; J Lee; S A Leadon; M Weinfeld
Journal:  Science       Date:  1998-05-15       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 7.  The Croonian Lecture, 1996: endogenous damage to DNA.

Authors:  T Lindahl
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  1996-11-29       Impact factor: 6.237

8.  Adaptive response and its variation in human normal and tumour cells.

Authors:  G P Raaphorst; S Boyden
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 2.694

9.  Carcinogenesis in laboratory mice after low doses of ionizing radiation.

Authors:  Vincenzo Di Majo; Simonetta Rebessi; Simonetta Pazzaglia; Anna Saran; Vincenzo Covelli
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.841

Review 10.  The adaptive response in radiobiology: evolving insights and implications.

Authors:  S Wolff
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 9.031

View more
  30 in total

1.  Nucleoplasmic bridges and tailed nuclei are signatures of radiation exposure in Oreochromis mossambicus using erythrocyte micronucleus cytome assay (EMNCA).

Authors:  S Anbumani; Mary N Mohankumar
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  Twilight effects of low doses of ionizing radiation on cellular systems: a bird's eye view on current concepts and research.

Authors:  Ilaria Postiglione; Angela Chiaviello; Giuseppe Palumbo
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2009-06-06       Impact factor: 3.064

4.  Sparsely ionizing diagnostic and natural background radiations are likely preventing cancer and other genomic-instability-associated diseases.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott; Jennifer Di Palma
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2006-12-21       Impact factor: 2.658

5.  Stochastic thresholds: a novel explanation of nonlinear dose-response relationships for stochastic radiobiological effects.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2006-05-22       Impact factor: 2.658

6.  Chernobyl-level radiation exposure damages bumblebee reproduction: a laboratory experiment.

Authors:  Katherine E Raines; Penelope R Whitehorn; David Copplestone; Matthew C Tinsley
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Low-dose cancer risk modeling must recognize up-regulation of protection.

Authors:  Ludwig E Feinendegen; Myron Pollycove; Ronald D Neumann
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2009-12-10       Impact factor: 2.658

8.  Anti-apoptotic and antioxidant effects of low dose gamma irradiation against diabetes-induced brain injury in rats.

Authors:  Engy R Rashed; Menna A El-Daly; Sawsan A Abd-Elhalim; Mona A El-Ghazaly
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 1.925

9.  It's time for a new low-dose-radiation risk assessment paradigm--one that acknowledges hormesis.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2007-09-30       Impact factor: 2.658

10.  Amelioration of thioacetamide-induced hepatic encephalopathy in rats by low-dose gamma irradiation.

Authors:  Mona Abd El-Latif El-Ghazaly; Engy Refaat Rashed; Ghada Mahmoud Shafey; Hala Fahmy Zaki; Amina Salem Attia
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2019-11-30       Impact factor: 4.223

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.