Literature DB >> 20617329

Current status of biodosimetry based on standard cytogenetic methods.

Marcela Maria Pereira de Lemos Pinto1, Neyliane Frassinetti Gonçalves Santos, Ademir Amaral.   

Abstract

Knowledge about dose levels in radiation protection is an important step for risk assessment. However, in most cases of real or suspected accidental exposures to ionizing radiation (IR), physical dosimetry cannot be performed for retrospective estimates. In such situations, biological dosimetry has been proposed as an alternative for investigation. Briefly, biodosimetry can be defined as individual dose evaluation based on biological endpoints induced by IR (so-called biomarkers). The relationship between biological endpoints and absorbed dose is not always straightforward: nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea, for example, are the most well-known biological effects of individual irradiation, but a precise correlation between those symptoms and absorbed dose is hardly achieved. The scoring of unstable chromosomal-type aberrations (such as dicentrics and rings) and micronuclei in mitogen-stimulated peripheral blood, up till today, has been the most extensively biodosimetry assay employed for such purposes. Dicentric assay is the gold standard in biodosimetry, since its presence is generally considered to be specific to radiation exposure; scoring of micronuclei (a kind of by-product of chromosomal damages) is easier and faster than that of dicentrics for dose assessment. In this context, the aim of this work is to present an overview on biodosimetry based on standard cytogenetic methods, highlighting its advantages and limitations as tool in monitoring of radiation workers' doses or investigation into accidental exposures. Recent advances and perspectives are also briefly presented.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20617329     DOI: 10.1007/s00411-010-0311-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys        ISSN: 0301-634X            Impact factor:   1.925


  86 in total

1.  The micronucleus assay in human lymphocytes after high radiation doses (5-15 Gy).

Authors:  Wolfgang Ulrich Müller; Achim Rode
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2002-05-22       Impact factor: 2.433

2.  Estimating mixed field effects: an application supporting the lack of a non-linear component for chromosome aberration induction by neutrons.

Authors:  F Ballarini; M Biaggi; A Edwards; A Ferrari; A Ottolenghi; M Pelliccioni; D Scannicchio
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 0.972

Review 3.  Regulation of quiescence in lymphocytes.

Authors:  Isharat Yusuf; David A Fruman
Journal:  Trends Immunol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 16.687

4.  Transmissible and nontransmissible complex chromosome aberrations characterized by three-color and mFISH define a biomarker of exposure to high-LET alpha particles.

Authors:  Rhona M Anderson; Samantha J Marsden; Stephen J Paice; Anna E Bristow; Munira A Kadhim; Carol S Griffin; Dudley T Goodhead
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.841

5.  Why can't we find a better biological indicator of dose?

Authors:  Philippe Voisin; Laurence Roy; Marc Benderitter
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 0.972

Review 6.  Usefulness and limits of biological dosimetry based on cytogenetic methods.

Authors:  A Léonard; J Rueff; G B Gerber; E D Léonard
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.972

7.  Retrospective dose reconstruction of human radiation exposure by FISH/chromosome painting.

Authors:  M Bauchinger
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1998-08-03       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 8.  Cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay evolves into a "cytome" assay of chromosomal instability, mitotic dysfunction and cell death.

Authors:  Michael Fenech
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2006-07-05       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 9.  The HUman MicroNucleus Project--An international collaborative study on the use of the micronucleus technique for measuring DNA damage in humans.

Authors:  M Fenech; N Holland; W P Chang; E Zeiger; S Bonassi
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1999-07-16       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 10.  Molecular and cellular biology of moderate-dose (1-10 Gy) radiation and potential mechanisms of radiation protection: report of a workshop at Bethesda, Maryland, December 17-18, 2001.

Authors:  C Norman Coleman; William F Blakely; John R Fike; Thomas J MacVittie; Noelle F Metting; James B Mitchell; John E Moulder; R Julian Preston; Thomas M Seed; Helen B Stone; Philip J Tofilon; Rosemary S L Wong
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 2.841

View more
  43 in total

1.  Microarray analysis of miRNA expression profiles following whole body irradiation in a mouse model.

Authors:  Molykutty J Aryankalayil; Sunita Chopra; Adeola Makinde; Iris Eke; Joel Levin; Uma Shankavaram; Laurel MacMillan; Claire Vanpouille-Box; Sandra Demaria; C Norman Coleman
Journal:  Biomarkers       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 2.658

2.  Dose-dependent micronuclei formation in normal human fibroblasts exposed to proton radiation.

Authors:  Alexandra V Litvinchuk; J Vachelová; A Michaelidesová; R Wagner; M Davídková
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 1.925

3.  Serum microRNAs are early indicators of survival after radiation-induced hematopoietic injury.

Authors:  Sanket S Acharya; Wojciech Fendler; Jacqueline Watson; Abigail Hamilton; Yunfeng Pan; Emily Gaudiano; Patryk Moskwa; Payel Bhanja; Subhrajit Saha; Chandan Guha; Kalindi Parmar; Dipanjan Chowdhury
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 17.956

4.  Use of the DBD-FISH technique for detecting DNA breakage in response to high doses of X-rays.

Authors:  Elva I Cortés-Gutiérrez; Martha I Dávila-Rodríguez; Ricardo M Cerda-Flores; José Luis Fernández; Carmen López-Fernández; Jaime Gosálvez
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 1.925

5.  Directional genomic hybridization: inversions as a potential biodosimeter for retrospective radiation exposure.

Authors:  F Andrew Ray; Erin Robinson; Miles McKenna; Megumi Hada; Kerry George; Francis Cucinotta; Edwin H Goodwin; Joel S Bedford; Susan M Bailey; Michael N Cornforth
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2014-01-30       Impact factor: 1.925

6.  Next generation platforms for high-throughput biodosimetry.

Authors:  Mikhail Repin; Helen C Turner; Guy Garty; David J Brenner
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2014-05-17       Impact factor: 0.972

7.  mFISH analysis of chromosome aberrations in workers occupationally exposed to mixed radiation.

Authors:  Natalia V Sotnik; Sergey V Osovets; Harry Scherthan; Tamara V Azizova
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2014-04-09       Impact factor: 1.925

Review 8.  Factors Affecting the Quality of Tooth Enamel for In Vivo EPR-Based Retrospective Biodosimetry.

Authors:  Céline M Desmet; Philippe Levêque; Bernard Gallez
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 0.972

9.  Simultaneous analysis of p53 protein expression and cell proliferation in irradiated human lymphocytes by flow cytometry.

Authors:  Rafael de Freitas E Silva; Neyliane Frassinetti Gonçalves Dos Santos; Valéria Rěgo Alves Pereira; Ademir Amaral
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2013-08-27       Impact factor: 2.658

10.  Gene expression as a biomarker for human radiation exposure.

Authors:  Romaica A Omaruddin; Thomas A Roland; H James Wallace; M Ahmad Chaudhry
Journal:  Hum Cell       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 4.174

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.