Literature DB >> 22677531

Ionizing radiation biomarkers for potential use in epidemiological studies.

Eileen Pernot1, Janet Hall, Sarah Baatout, Mohammed Abderrafi Benotmane, Eric Blanchardon, Simon Bouffler, Houssein El Saghire, Maria Gomolka, Anne Guertler, Mats Harms-Ringdahl, Penny Jeggo, Michaela Kreuzer, Dominique Laurier, Carita Lindholm, Radhia Mkacher, Roel Quintens, Kai Rothkamm, Laure Sabatier, Soile Tapio, Florent de Vathaire, Elisabeth Cardis.   

Abstract

Ionizing radiation is a known human carcinogen that can induce a variety of biological effects depending on the physical nature, duration, doses and dose-rates of exposure. However, the magnitude of health risks at low doses and dose-rates (below 100mSv and/or 0.1mSvmin(-1)) remains controversial due to a lack of direct human evidence. It is anticipated that significant insights will emerge from the integration of epidemiological and biological research, made possible by molecular epidemiology studies incorporating biomarkers and bioassays. A number of these have been used to investigate exposure, effects and susceptibility to ionizing radiation, albeit often at higher doses and dose rates, with each reflecting time-limited cellular or physiological alterations. This review summarises the multidisciplinary work undertaken in the framework of the European project DoReMi (Low Dose Research towards Multidisciplinary Integration) to identify the most appropriate biomarkers for use in population studies. In addition to logistical and ethical considerations for conducting large-scale epidemiological studies, we discuss the relevance of their use for assessing the effects of low dose ionizing radiation exposure at the cellular and physiological level. We also propose a temporal classification of biomarkers that may be relevant for molecular epidemiology studies which need to take into account the time elapsed since exposure. Finally, the integration of biology with epidemiology requires careful planning and enhanced discussions between the epidemiology, biology and dosimetry communities in order to determine the most important questions to be addressed in light of pragmatic considerations including the appropriate population to be investigated (occupationally, environmentally or medically exposed), and study design. The consideration of the logistics of biological sample collection, processing and storing and the choice of biomarker or bioassay, as well as awareness of potential confounding factors, are also essential.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22677531     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2012.05.003

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


  60 in total

Review 1.  Radiation signature on exposed cells: Relevance in dose estimation.

Authors:  Venkatachalam Perumal; Tamizh Selvan Gnana Sekaran; Venkateswarlu Raavi; Safa Abdul Syed Basheerudeen; Karthik Kanagaraj; Amith Roy Chowdhury; Solomon Fd Paul
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2015-09-28

Review 2.  Proteomics in radiation research: present status and future perspectives.

Authors:  Omid Azimzadeh; Michael J Atkinson; Soile Tapio
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2013-10-09       Impact factor: 1.925

Review 3.  Mechanisms and Consequences of Double-Strand DNA Break Formation in Chromatin.

Authors:  Wendy J Cannan; David S Pederson
Journal:  J Cell Physiol       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 6.384

4.  Dicentric Dose Estimates for Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy in the RTGene Study to Assess Blood Dosimetric Models and the New Bayesian Method for Gradient Exposure.

Authors:  Jayne Moquet; Manuel Higueras; Ellen Donovan; Sue Boyle; Stephen Barnard; Clare Bricknell; Mingzhu Sun; Lone Gothard; Grainne O'Brien; Lourdes Cruz-Garcia; Christophe Badie; Elizabeth Ainsbury; Navita Somaiah
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2018-09-20       Impact factor: 2.841

5.  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

6.  A study on the effect of the internal exposure to (210)Po on the excretion of urinary proteins in rats.

Authors:  Baki Sadi; Chunsheng Li; Raymond Ko; Joseph Daka; Hamdi Yusuf; Heather Wyatt; Joel Surette; Nick Priest; Nobuyuki Hamada
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 1.925

Review 7.  Evaluating biomarkers to model cancer risk post cosmic ray exposure.

Authors:  Deepa M Sridharan; Aroumougame Asaithamby; Steve R Blattnig; Sylvain V Costes; Paul W Doetsch; William S Dynan; Philip Hahnfeldt; Lynn Hlatky; Yared Kidane; Amy Kronenberg; Mamta D Naidu; Leif E Peterson; Ianik Plante; Artem L Ponomarev; Janapriya Saha; Antoine M Snijders; Kalayarasan Srinivasan; Jonathan Tang; Erica Werner; Janice M Pluth
Journal:  Life Sci Space Res (Amst)       Date:  2016-05-21

8.  Ionizing radiation exposure: hazards, prevention, and biomarker screening.

Authors:  Hongxiang Mu; Jing Sun; Linwei Li; Jie Yin; Nan Hu; Weichao Zhao; Dexin Ding; Lan Yi
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2018-04-29       Impact factor: 4.223

9.  Assessing liver proteins and enzymes of medical workers exposed to ionizing radiation (IR).

Authors:  Saman Shahid; Khalid Masood
Journal:  Clin Exp Med       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 3.984

Review 10.  Crosstalk between telomere maintenance and radiation effects: A key player in the process of radiation-induced carcinogenesis.

Authors:  Grace Shim; Michelle Ricoul; William M Hempel; Edouard I Azzam; Laure Sabatier
Journal:  Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res       Date:  2014-01-31       Impact factor: 5.657

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.