In cells exposed to low linear energy transfer (LET) ionizing-radiation (IR), double-strand-breaks (DSBs) form within clustered-damage-sites (CDSs) from lesions disrupting the DNA sugar-phosphate backbone. It is commonly assumed that all DSBs form promptly and are immediately detected by the cellular DNA-damage-response (DDR) apparatus. However, there is evidence that the pool of DSBs detected by physical methods, such as pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), comprises not only promptly forming DSBs (prDSBs) but also DSBs developing during lysis at high temperatures from thermally-labile sugar-lesions (TLSLs). We recently demonstrated that conversion of TLSLs to DNA breaks and ultimately to DSBs also occurs in cells during the first hour of post-irradiation incubation at physiological temperatures. Thus, TLSL-dependent DSBs (tlDSBs) are not an avoidable technique-related artifact, but a reality the cell always faces. The biological consequences of tlDSBs and the dependence of their formation on LET require in-depth investigation. Heavy-ions (HI) are a promising high-LET radiation modality used in cancer treatment. HI are also encountered in space and generate serious radiation protection problems to prolonged space missions. Here, we study, therefore, the effect of HI on the yields of tlDSBs and prDSBs. We report a reduction in the yield of tlDBSs stronger than that earlier reported for neutrons, and with pronounced cell line dependence. We conclude that with increasing LET the complexity of CDSs increases resulting in a commensurate increase in the yield prDSBs and a decrease in tlDSBs. The consequences of these effects to the relative biological effectiveness are discussed.
In cells exposed to low linear energy transfer (LET) ionizing-radiation (IR), double-strand-breaks (DSBs) form within clustered-damage-sites (CDSs) from lesions disrupting the DNA sugar-phosphate backbone. It is commonly assumed that all DSBs form promptly and are immediately detected by the cellular DNA-damage-response (DDR) apparatus. However, there is evidence that the pool of DSBs detected by physical methods, such as pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), comprises not only promptly forming DSBs (prDSBs) but also DSBs developing during lysis at high temperatures from thermally-labile sugar-lesions (TLSLs). We recently demonstrated that conversion of TLSLs to DNA breaks and ultimately to DSBs also occurs in cells during the first hour of post-irradiation incubation at physiological temperatures. Thus, TLSL-dependent DSBs (tlDSBs) are not an avoidable technique-related artifact, but a reality the cell always faces. The biological consequences of tlDSBs and the dependence of their formation on LET require in-depth investigation. Heavy-ions (HI) are a promising high-LET radiation modality used in cancer treatment. HI are also encountered in space and generate serious radiation protection problems to prolonged space missions. Here, we study, therefore, the effect of HI on the yields of tlDSBs and prDSBs. We report a reduction in the yield of tlDBSs stronger than that earlier reported for neutrons, and with pronounced cell line dependence. We conclude that with increasing LET the complexity of CDSs increases resulting in a commensurate increase in the yield prDSBs and a decrease in tlDSBs. The consequences of these effects to the relative biological effectiveness are discussed.
Ionizing radiation (IR) deposits energy as single ionizations or as ionization
clusters that generate base and sugar damages in the DNA [1-3]. Clusters of ionization can generate clusters of DNA damage with
different sizes and diverse damage composition (clustered damage sites, CDSs). Sugar
damage can disrupt the sugar-phosphate backbone to generate DNA single-strand-breaks
(SSBs) [2-4]. SSBs within CDSs form DNA double-strand-breaks (DSBs), which can have
severe biological consequences [1,4-8].DSBs can also be generated from CDSs populated with base damages through bi-stranded
enzymatic opening during repair of the DNA sugar-phosphate backbone, or by combining
with a SSB [7].DSBs initiate rapid signaling and complex regulatory processes affecting DNA repair,
cell cycle progression, transcription, translation, as well as decisions of
programmed cell death and autophagy. These responses are currently integrated under
the term cellular DNA-damage-response (DDR) [9].Analysis of DDR after IR is based on the assumption that all DSBs form promptly.
However, irradiation of plasmid DNA has shown that IR induces, in addition to sugar
lesions promptly disrupting the sugar-phosphate backbone (prompt breaks), also
lesions doing so after temperature-dependent chemical processing (delayed breaks) [10]. These thermally labile sugar lesions, TLSLs, constitute what are
considered radiation-induced labile sites [1,6,10]. They can include diverse forms of sugar damage, abasic sites, and forms
of base damage affecting sugar stability. Chemical evolution of such TLSLs to SSBs
within a CDS can generate additional, TLSL-dependent DSBs (tlDSBs) [3,5,10-13].Until recently, it was believed that in mammalian cells evolution of TLSLs to SSBs
and the generation in this way of DSBs is only possible at high, non-physiological
temperatures (~ 50°C) [14-16]. However, recent work from our laboratory [17,18] provides evidence that IR induces TLSLs, which evolve within about
1 h under physiological temperatures to SSBs and contribute, when present
within a CDS, to the formation of DSBs. These delayed-forming DSBs are thought to be
generated continuously during the first postirradiation hour and to add to DSBs
promptly induced (prDSBs). The biological consequences of tlDSBs remain to be
elucidated, but are likely to be significant.Since tlDBSs form within CDSs, the quality and quantity of which strongly depends on
the linear energy transfer (LET) of the radiation employed, it is particularly
important to study determinants of formation and rules of chemical tlDSBs processing
after exposure to high LET radiation. First experiments along these lines using
neutrons [19] showed a marked decrease in the yield of tlDBSs.Heavy-ions (HI) are a promising high-LET radiation modality increasingly used in
cancer treatment. Carbon ions are being used for the treatment of several types of
solid cancers with promising results, and advanced treatment centers with ion
accelerators are under construction in several countries. Important research issues
related to the biological effects of HI and their relevance to the clinical
application have been identified for in-depth investigation [20]. The nature of the DNA damage induced by HI and the contribution of
tlDSBs to the biological effect is one such fundamental question.HI are also encountered in space and generate serious radiation protection problems
for long-duration missions to the earth’s moon, or to Mars [21]. In preparing for such missions, the risk of cancer from space radiation
must be estimated and mitigating measures must be developed. HI produce distinct
forms of biological damage with largely unknown cancer risks. HI are therefore
likely to require countermeasures different from those developed for low LET
radiation [21]. Characterization of differences in the form of DNA damage generated by
HI, particularly in the form of prDSBs and tlDSBs, is the first important step in
this endeavor.Here, we study the yields of tlDSBs and prDSBs in cells exposed to HI. We report a
reduction in the yield of tlDBSs stronger than that earlier reported for neutrons [19], but still with pronounced cell line dependence.
Materials and methods
Cell lines and culture conditions
M059K, a repair proficient humanglioma cell line and M059J
its DNA-PKcs deficient counterpart [22], were grown in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (D-MEM)
supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS), 1% non-essential amino acids and
1% L-glutamine. Mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) from Lig4-/-/p53-/- and Lig4+/+/p53-/- mice [23] were grown in D-MEM supplemented with 10% FBS and antibiotics. For
experiments, cells were maintained in the exponential phase of growth at
37°C in a humidified incubator, in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and
95% air.
Irradiation conditions for heavy ions (58Fe) and X-rays
To analyze induction of DSBs, cells were resuspended in serum-free medium, and
processed for PFGE as described earlier [17,18].Exposures to heavy ions (HI) were carried out at the GSI Helmholtzzentrum
für Schwerionenforschung GmbH in Darmstadt, Germany. Typically cells were
seeded in 25 cm2 tissue culture flasks and were incubated for
24 h at 37°C in Essen. The following day cells were transported in an
insulated container filled with warm pads to maintain the temperature of the
cells as close as possible to 37°C, but without active heating. Upon
arrival at the GSI, cells were promptly incubated at 37°C under standard
growth conditions, and were allowed to recover for several hours from the
transportation stress.Cells were exposed to 1 GeV/amu heavy ions (58Fe or
62Ni). The particle LET under these conditions is
150 keV/μm and 175 keV/μm for 58Fe and
62Ni, respectively. Dosimetry was carried out with a calibrated
farmer chamber (PTW, Freiburg, Germany). The absolute particle fluence was
measured with a calibrated ionization chamber (GSI, Darmstadt, Germany) at the
beam exit window and the homogeneity of the scanned field was regularly checked
using radiochromic EBT films (Ashland,Gafchromic, USA). The irradiation field
was 5 x 8 cm and was generated by multiple scanning of a pencil beam across
the field with a dose deposition of 1 Gy per single scan. During
irradiation cells were maintained at 4-8 °C. Before exposure to heavy
ions, tissue culture flasks were filled with growth media and were pre-cooled in
ice-water for 15 min before placement in the irradiation holder. During the
actual exposure to radiation, cells were not actively cooled. After radiation
exposure, cells were transferred to the laboratory in ice. Where appropriate,
irradiated cells were transferred to pre-warmed (45°C) media to quickly
regenerate 37°C and start repair processes. The limited availability of HI
for biological experiments made repeat-experiments impossible.Control experiments were carried out by exposing cells to X-rays. In this case,
irradiations were carried out also on ice with a Seifert-Pantak X-ray machine
operated at 320 kV, 10 mA with a 1.65 mm Al filter (effective
photon energy, 90 keV), at a dose rate of 3 Gy/min and a distance of
50 cm. Dosimetry was carried out using a calibrated ionization chamber and
a chemical dosimeter. The mean LET of this type of radiation is, approximately,
2 keV/μm.
Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE)
In certain experiments, cells were lysed before irradiation using the low
temperature lysis (LTL) protocol described below [15] and were incubated in TEN buffer (10 mM Tris–HCl,
pH 7.5, 2 mM EDTA, 50 mM NaCl) to analyze TLSL-evolution. In
other experiments, cells embedded in agarose blocks were irradiated in
serum-free medium and were subsequently lysed by LTL.In the standard, high temperature lysis (HTL) protocol [24], agarose blocks were placed in lysis buffer (10 mM
Tris–HCl, pH 7.6, 50 mM NaCl, 10 mM EDTA, 2% N-lauryl
sarcosyl, NLS, and 0.2 mg/ml protease added just before use) at 4°C
and were further processed at 50°C as described earlier [17,18]. Low temperature lysis (LTL) was carried out by maintaining samples
below 4°C at all times using a published protocol [15], as described earlier [17,18].Asymmetric, field-inversion gel electrophoresis (AFIGE) was carried out in gels
cast with 0.5% molecular biology grade agarose (Bio-Rad) in the presence of
0.5 μg/ml ethidium bromide as described [17,18]. Gels were scanned using the "Typhoon" (GE-Healthcare) and the
fraction of DNA released (FDR) from the well into the lane was quantified from
images obtained using Image Quant 5.2 (GE-Healthcare).
Treatment for the development of in-vitro of DSBs from TLSLs
To monitor the kinetics of excess DSB formation at different temperatures in
vitro, cells embedded in agarose blocks were exposed to IR, subjected
to LTL, washed once for 1 h in TEN buffer (0.5 ml/plug) and the
resulting agarose blocks containing the “naked” DNA were distributed
to different tubes in the same buffer. Tubes were then transferred to water
baths adjusted at different temperatures ranging between 10°C - 50°C
and incubated for different periods of time before washing once in 0.5X TBE and
processing for PFGE.
Results
No detectable tlDSBs in some cell lines after exposure to HI
Previous work suggested that the contribution of TLSLs to the overall cellular
DSB load decreases with increasing LET [19]. We inquired whether this trend persists with increasing LET of the
radiation employed, as is the case for HI exposures. Figure 1A summarizes results obtained after exposure of the humantumor
cell line, M059K, to iron ions (58Fe). As previously reported [17,18], exposure at 4°C of agarose-embedded M059K cells to different
X-ray doses gives after lysis with the standard HTL protocol over 40% additional
DSBs than lysis with the TLSL-preserving LTL protocol; these extra DSBs (tlDSBs)
are generated by the thermal conversion within a CDS of TLSLs to SSBs.
Figure 1
Dose response curves for the induction of DNA DSBs after
Fe ion irradiation in human M059K and
M059J cells. Results earlier generated [19] with X-rays are depicted as gray symbols for comparison; they
are similar to results generated in parallel to the 58Fe
irradiations but for limited number of doses in the range of interest
(not shown). (A) Human M059K cells were embedded in agarose
blocks and were exposed to different doses of 1 GeV accelerated
58Fe ions. Induction of DSBs was assayed by asymmetric
field inversion gel electrophoresis (AFIGE), a pulsed-field gel
electrophoresis method. Irradiated agarose blocks were processed
immediately after irradiation using either HTL or LTL. Gels were scanned
in a Fluor Imager and the fraction of DNA released from the wells into
the lane (FDR) was determined for different radiation doses. Data
represent the calculated average and standard deviation from 4
determinations (agarose blocks) in one experiment. (B) M059J
cells embedded in agarose blocks were irradiated and analyzed as
described above. Data represent the calculated average and standard
deviation from 4 determinations in one experiment.
Dose response curves for the induction of DNA DSBs after
Fe ion irradiation in human M059K and
M059J cells. Results earlier generated [19] with X-rays are depicted as gray symbols for comparison; they
are similar to results generated in parallel to the 58Fe
irradiations but for limited number of doses in the range of interest
(not shown). (A) Human M059K cells were embedded in agarose
blocks and were exposed to different doses of 1 GeV accelerated
58Fe ions. Induction of DSBs was assayed by asymmetric
field inversion gel electrophoresis (AFIGE), a pulsed-field gel
electrophoresis method. Irradiated agarose blocks were processed
immediately after irradiation using either HTL or LTL. Gels were scanned
in a Fluor Imager and the fraction of DNA released from the wells into
the lane (FDR) was determined for different radiation doses. Data
represent the calculated average and standard deviation from 4
determinations (agarose blocks) in one experiment. (B) M059J
cells embedded in agarose blocks were irradiated and analyzed as
described above. Data represent the calculated average and standard
deviation from 4 determinations in one experiment.Exposure of M059K cells to 58Fe ions using the same experimental
conditions shows higher yields of DSBs than X-rays after HTL, but interestingly
no detectable modulation after analysis using LTL. This result indicates that
the yields of tlDSBs approach zero in M059K cells exposed to 58Fe
ions.Differences in the effectiveness at different endpoints between high and low LET
radiations are conveniently compared by defining the relative biological
effectiveness (RBE) as the quotient of the doses required for equal effect after
exposure to X-rays and the test radiation modality. In the experiment shown in
Figure 1A and because of the practically linear
dose-yield curves measured, this parameter can be determined in an
effect-independent manner using the slopes of the resulting straight lines.
Notably, widely different RBE values for 58Fe versus X-ray exposure
are calculated when using as basis the results obtained after HTL (reflecting
the sum of prDSBs + tlDSBs) versus LTL (reflecting exclusively
prDSBs). Specifically, a value of RBEHTL = 1.12 is
calculated using the slopes of the X-ray and 58Fe dose–response
curves after HTL, while a value of RBELTL = 1.91 is
obtained from the corresponding LTL data.The response to 58Fe noted above is reproduced in the DNA-PKcs
deficient counterpart of M059K, the M059J cells [25,26] (Figure 1B). The X-ray data reproduce
again earlier findings [17,18] and show that 45% more DSBs are detected after HTL as compared to
LTL. On the other hand, after exposure to 58Fe, similar DSB yields
are obtained after HTL and LTL. As a result RBEHTL = 1.39
and RBELTL = 2.70 are calculated for the induction of
DSBs in M059J cells.We conclude that in a subgroup of cell lines, examples of which are M059K, and
M059J, a contribution of TLSLs to excess DSB formation (tlDSBs) is marginal
after exposure to 58Fe.
Detectable formation of TLSL-dependent DSBs in some cell lines after exposure
to 58Fe
We noted before that the contribution of TLSL to DSBs is cell line specific [17,18] and that this cell line specificity is also detectable after exposure
to neutrons [19]. We explored therefore whether this also holds for exposures to
58Fe.The results summarized in Figure 2A indicate a
decrease by 63% in the number of DSBs after LTL as compared to HTL in
Lig4 MEFs exposed to X-rays. Yet, a decrease by 39% is also registered after
exposure of the same cells to 58Fe indicating a significant
contribution of TLSLs to the formation of DSBs. Here, an
RBEHTL = 1.12 and an RBELTL = 1.83
are calculated for the induction of DSBs after exposure to 58Fe.
Figure 2
Induction of DSBs and TLSL evolution in cells exposed to
Fe ions. (A) Exponentially
growing Lig4 MEFs were irradiated and
analyzed as described in Figure 1. Data
represent the calculated average and standard deviation from 4
determinations (agarose blocks) in one experiment. (B)
Exponentially growing M059K cells were embedded in agarose blocks and
exposed to 20 Gy of 1 GeV accelerated 58Fe ions.
Irradiated blocks were lysed by LTL and incubated in TEN buffer at 4, 37
and 50°C for the indicated periods of time. Cells were analyzed by
PFGE. Data represent the calculated average and standard deviation from
4 determinations in one experiment.
Induction of DSBs and TLSL evolution in cells exposed to
Fe ions. (A) Exponentially
growing Lig4 MEFs were irradiated and
analyzed as described in Figure 1. Data
represent the calculated average and standard deviation from 4
determinations (agarose blocks) in one experiment. (B)
Exponentially growing M059K cells were embedded in agarose blocks and
exposed to 20 Gy of 1 GeV accelerated 58Fe ions.
Irradiated blocks were lysed by LTL and incubated in TEN buffer at 4, 37
and 50°C for the indicated periods of time. Cells were analyzed by
PFGE. Data represent the calculated average and standard deviation from
4 determinations in one experiment.We conclude that while the contribution of TLSLs to excess DSB formation is
reduced after exposure to 58Fe, the level of this reduction is cell
line dependent.It may be relevant to mention here that small DNA fragments, undetectable by
PFGE, are produced in higher yields after exposure to high, as compared to low,
LET radiation. Thus, the yields of DSBs measured after exposure to high LET
radiation are likely to be underestimated. However, we consider unlikely that
this inherent limitation in the detection of DSBs compromises our
conclusions.
Different yields of TLSL-dependent DSBs after exposure to 58Fe of
naked DNA and chromatin
To further confirm the absence of TLSL induced DSBs in 58Fe exposed
M059K cells (Figure 1A), we exposed agarose-embedded
cells to 20 Gy and processed them immediately by LTL to obtain
agarose-embedded, “naked” DNA in which radiation-induced lesions,
including TLSLs, were preserved [18]. In these agarose blocks, TLSL stability can be studied through their
contribution to DSB formation after in-vitro incubation at different
temperatures.The results summarized in Figure 2B show no
significant increase in FDR for incubations in TEN-buffer at temperatures
between 4 and 50°C for up to 48 h. Similar experiments carried out
with cells exposed to X-rays show large increases in FDR for post-lysis
incubations at temperatures above 20°C [18]. The lack of excess DSB formation following incubation at high
temperatures of DNA from 58Fe-exposed M059K cells is in-line with the
similar dose–response curves shown in Figure 1A
following HTL and LTL.Collectively, the above results suggest that cell line specific biochemical
parameters contribute to the generation of tlDSBs, even after exposure to high
LET radiation. To begin characterizing parameters defining this effect, we used
LTL to lyse non-irradiated M059K cells and exposed the resulting
agarose-embedded “naked” DNA to 5 Gy of 62Ni. In
this way, a variety of lesions, including TLSLs, are generated in naked DNA kept
in a defined buffer. This condition is biochemically better characterized than
irradiation of chromatin organized DNA in the cellular environment.Agarose blocks generated in this manner were transferred to TEN buffer and after
irradiation were incubated at different temperatures for different periods of
time. The results obtained are summarized in Figure 3A and show that 62Ni ions generate TLSLs in
“naked” DNA that readily convert to DSBs after incubation at
temperatures between 37 – 50°C, with kinetics similar to that
measured after exposure to X-rays [18]. Thus, DNA organization is a key determinant of the chemical
characteristics and the associated thermal stability of tlDSBs not only after
exposure to low LET but also after exposure to high LET radiation.
Figure 3
Induction of TLSL in naked DNA exposed to
Ni ions is suppressed by DMSO.
Exponentially growing M059K cells were embedded in agarose and subjected
to LTL. Generated “naked” DNA was exposed to 5 Gy of
1 GeV accelerated 62Ni ions in the presence of 0%
(A) or 2% (B) DMSO. Subsequently, agarose blocks were
incubated in TEN buffer at different temperatures for the indicated
periods of time and analyzed by PFGE. Data represent the calculated
average and standard deviation from 4 determinations (agarose blocks) in
one experiment.
Induction of TLSL in naked DNA exposed to
Ni ions is suppressed by DMSO.
Exponentially growing M059K cells were embedded in agarose and subjected
to LTL. Generated “naked” DNA was exposed to 5 Gy of
1 GeV accelerated 62Ni ions in the presence of 0%
(A) or 2% (B) DMSO. Subsequently, agarose blocks were
incubated in TEN buffer at different temperatures for the indicated
periods of time and analyzed by PFGE. Data represent the calculated
average and standard deviation from 4 determinations (agarose blocks) in
one experiment.We inquired whether indirect radiation effects by water radical production
underpin the TLSL-dependent formation of excess DSBs after incubation at high
temperatures. For this purpose we carried out the “naked”-DNA
experiment described above in the presence of 2% DMSO, an effective scavenger of
•OH radicals. The results summarized in Figure 3B indicate that when irradiation of naked DNA is carried
out in the presence of DMSO, subsequent incubation at high temperatures reduces
the yields of excess DSBs generated, pointing to a contribution of
•OH in the production of TLSLs. We conclude that
•OH has an essential contribution to the generation of
tlDSBs when irradiating “naked” DNA. This result cannot be directly
extended to cell irradiation because the chromatin organization of the DNA is
protecting it from •OH attacks.
Processing of DSBs by NHEJ is slower after exposure to HI than X-rays
In wild-type M059K cells, total DSBs (analyzed by HTL) induced by 1GeV/amu
58Fe are repaired with nearly the same efficiency as those
induced by X-rays (Figure 4A); however, more
unrepaired DSBs are detected between 2 – 8 h after exposure to HI.
Within statistical variation, a similar response is also observed when DSB
repair kinetics is measured by LTL to specifically assay for prDSBs
(Figure 4B). Similar overall trends are also
obtained when analyzing wild type MEFs exposed to 62Ni ions
(Additional file 1: Figure S1).
Figure 4
DSB repair kinetics of human M059K cells exposed to
Fe ions or X-rays. (A)
Exponentially growing M059K cells were exposed to 20 Gy of X-rays
or 58Fe ions and returned to standard incubation conditions
for repair. Agarose blocks were prepared and lysed by HTL (A) or
LTL (B) before processing by PFGE. Plotted is relative repair as
a function of repair time. To calculate relative repair, FDR at
different time points was divided by the FDR measured at the 0 h
time point (this value was obtained from the dose response curve). Data
represent the calculated average and standard deviation from 4
determinations in one experiment.
DSB repair kinetics of human M059K cells exposed to
Fe ions or X-rays. (A)
Exponentially growing M059K cells were exposed to 20 Gy of X-rays
or 58Fe ions and returned to standard incubation conditions
for repair. Agarose blocks were prepared and lysed by HTL (A) or
LTL (B) before processing by PFGE. Plotted is relative repair as
a function of repair time. To calculate relative repair, FDR at
different time points was divided by the FDR measured at the 0 h
time point (this value was obtained from the dose response curve). Data
represent the calculated average and standard deviation from 4
determinations in one experiment.In DNA-PKcs deficient M059J cells (Figure 5A), where D-NHEJ is defective and repair of DSBs is mainly mediated by
B-NHEJ [27-29], repair of 58Fe-induced total DSBs is compromised slightly
stronger than in M059K cells. Thus, the increased DSB complexity of
58Fe generated DSBs appears to compromise processing by B-NHEJ to
a greater extent than processing by D-NHEJ.
Figure 5
DSB repair kinetics of human M059J cells exposed to
Fe ions or X-rays. Other details as
in Figure 4.
DSB repair kinetics of human M059J cells exposed to
Fe ions or X-rays. Other details as
in Figure 4.When DSB repair kinetics is measured in M059J cells using LTL to focus analysis
on prDSBs and tlDSBs forming during repair, complex kinetics is observed after
exposure to X-rays (Figure 5B): The load of DSBs
rises at early times and decays subsequently. This structure derives from the
fact that the kinetics reflects not only the processing of prDBSs by B-NHEJ, but
also the gradual development and subsequent processing of tlDSBs (see [18] for a more in-depth analysis of the components involved). It is not
detectable in repair proficient M059K cells, either owing to the higher
efficiency of DSB repair, or to differences in the kinetics of tlDSB
production.Repair kinetics after exposure to 58Fe ions lacks this structure, in
line with the observation that only few tlDSBs are produced in M059J cells after
HI radiation (see Figure 1B). We do not have an
explanation why similar levels of residual damage is observed after 2 h in
cells exposed to X-rays and 58Fe when using LTL, but this may reflect
analysis artifacts. These may originate from shifts in the yields of prDSBs and
tlDSBs with increasing LET, as well as from the normalization applied (to show
percent of initial damage). Qualitatively similar results are also obtained
after exposure of Lig4 MEFs to 62Ni ions (Additional file 2: Figure S2). However, with these cells and probably as a consequence
of the significant induction of tlDSBs after exposure to HI (Figure 2A), repair of 62Ni induced DSBs is compromised
as compared to X-rays when analyzed by LTL (Additional file 2: Figure S2B).In an effort to connect the above observations on the induction and repair of
different forms of DSBs with the cell inactivation potential of HI, cell
survival was determined. The results obtained with M059K and M059J cells are
summarized in Figure 6. Shown in the figure for
comparison are also results previously reported with the same cell lines after
exposure to X-rays, in the presence or absence of 10 μM wortmannin to
inhibit D-NHEJ [24]. M059K cells exposed to X-rays show the typical dose response,
characterized by a shoulder at low radiation doses followed by an exponential
region at higher doses. Wortmannin-induced inhibition of D-NHEJ strongly
sensitizes M059K cells to X-rays and leads to an exponential survival curve.
Notably, M059K cells exposed to 58Fe ions show cell survival
practically indistinguishable from that of wortmannin-treated cells. From these
results RBEs of 3.8, 2.5, and 2.3 are calculated at surviving fractions of 0.1,
0.01, and 0.001, respectively.
Figure 6
Survival curves of logarithmically growing M059K and M059J cells as
measured by colony formation after exposure to 1 GeV
Fe ions (red symbols). Shown
(gray symbols) for comparison are also results of experiments previously
reported [24] with these cells after exposure to X-rays in the presence or
absence of 20 μM wortmannin. The figure also shows RBE values
calculated at the indicated levels of cell survival. The lines drawn
follow the early data points [24] and are given as basis for comparisons with the results
generated with 58Fe.
Survival curves of logarithmically growing M059K and M059J cells as
measured by colony formation after exposure to 1 GeV
Fe ions (red symbols). Shown
(gray symbols) for comparison are also results of experiments previously
reported [24] with these cells after exposure to X-rays in the presence or
absence of 20 μM wortmannin. The figure also shows RBE values
calculated at the indicated levels of cell survival. The lines drawn
follow the early data points [24] and are given as basis for comparisons with the results
generated with 58Fe.M059J cells, as a result of their deficiency in D-NHEJ, are intrinsically highly
radiosensitive and wortmannin has no further radiosensitizing effect. Notably,
58Fe ions are killing these cells with efficiency practically
indistinguishable from that of X-rays, which leads to RBEs of approximately 1.
This observation is in line with earlier reports pointing to a D-NHEJ
proficiency requirement for high LET mediated radiosensitization [30-33].
Discussion
There is evidence for the induction by IR of thermally labile DNA lesions, which
contribute to DSB formation (tlDSBs), albeit in a delayed manner, even in cells
maintained under physiological temperatures (see Introduction). As a result of this
delayed formation, the total load of DSBs generated in an irradiated cell (tDBSs)
will be the sum of those induced promptly, i.e. those present immediately after
irradiation (prDBSs), and those generated within a non-DSB-CDS by the conversion of
a TLSL to a SSB (tlDBSs); thus, tDSBs = prDBSs + tlDBSs. It
is not known whether prDBSs and tlDBSs are detected and processed by the cell with
the same efficiency and, actually, arguments can be developed why this may not be
the case [17-19]. If cells detect and process differently prDBSs and tlDBSs, it is likely
that their biological consequences will also be different.Experimentally, the yields of prDBSs can be determined by lysing cells immediately
after irradiation using low temperature (0 – 4°C) lysis protocols (LTL),
whereas the standard 50°C lysis allows determination of tDBSs. The difference
between tDBSs – prDBSs yields gives then estimates regarding the yields of
tlDBSs. There is evidence that IR induces a spectrum of TLSLs with different levels
of chemical and thermal stability [18]. This raises the question how to determine the biologically relevant
subset of tlDBSs, i.e. the subset that also converts to a DSB in cells maintained
under physiological conditions. There are at present no established methods allowing
the reliable determination of the biologically relevant subset of tlDBSs. However,
as a first approximation, we assume that conversion of TLSLs to breaks is similar in
cells maintained at 37°C and cells analyzed by lysing at 50°C immediately
after exposure to IR [18].Using the above outlined conceptual and experimental background we investigate here
how the yields of prDBSs and tlDBSs change in cells exposed to HI. The results
presented in the previous section extend trends previously reported for neutrons [19] and confirm a strong, inverse LET dependence of the yields of prDBSs and
tlDBSs. Specifically, while exposure to HI causes a strong reduction in the yields
of tlDBSs as compared to X-rays, it causes a strong increase in the yields of
prDBSs. These opposing effects partly compensate each other and as a result the
yield of tDSBs changes only modestly with increasing LET. This is in line with the
observation that RBEs close to 1 are frequently measured for the induction of DSBs [34]. Notably, our results demonstrate that when prDBSs are specifically
detected by LTL protocols, much higher RBE values are measured that are approaching
those obtained for cell survival (Figure 6). This is a
potentially highly significant observation that warrants further investigations.Notably, the RBE values for DSB-induction after exposure to high LET radiation, as
measured by γ-H2AX foci formation in diverse cell lines, is also very close to
one ([34] and references therein). This is significant as it shows, in line with
our earlier work [18], that the load of DSBs the cell ultimately “sees” is close to
that measured by HTL. If cells were only detecting prDBSs, as it is often assumed,
two to three times more DSBs (i.e. γ-H2AX foci) would have been expected after
exposure to high LET radiation than after low LET radiation. On the other hand, it
also demonstrates that the γ-H2AX marking of DSBs does not differentiate levels
of DSB complexity.The increase in prDSBs observed with increasing LET can be explained by the expected
increase in the size of ionization clusters (more ionizations within the same
volume) that leads to the generation of higher complexity CDS, i.e. the presence of
a higher number of lesions at the site. As a result of this increase in lesion
number within a CDS it becomes more likely that prompt SSBs will combine to form a
prDSB. Even if TLSLs are present in these CDSs, their subsequent conversion to
breaks will remain inconsequential with reference to DSB formation. The chemical
reactions that convert a TLSL to a SSB remain uncharacterized, but may include
base-catalyzed hydrolysis or oxidation [19].As noted above, TLSLs are not a uniform chemical entity but rather a spectrum of
lesions with different chemical and thermal sensitivities. The probability of their
formation from clusters of ionization events and radical attacks, as well as their
chemical evolution may be decisively determined by the chemical environment in their
immediate vicinity. In this respect, it is likely that the details of DNA
organization in chromatin within a CDS, including all participating histone and
non-histone proteins, will affect decisively not only the induction of TLSLs but
also their evolution to tlDBSs. This theoretically anticipated dependence provides
also a first explanation for the surprisingly large differences observed in the
yields of tlDBSs among different cell lines both after exposure to high as well as
to low LET radiation [17-19]. Furthermore, the large differences in LTL dose response curves among
different cell lines contrasts the surprisingly similar HTL dose response curves and
points to cell line specific variation in the chemical environment in the vicinity
of a clustered ionization hitting the DNA that alters the probability of generation
of a prDSB.While the selection of cell lines used here reflects the intellectual evolution of
the TLSL problematic in our work during the past few years, future work will
certainly benefit from a hypothesis oriented selection of cell lines and an analysis
of TLSL production and evolution after treatments that alter chromatin organization.
It is also worth pointing out that the differences between cell lines persist even
after exposure of cells to high LET radiation [19] (see above).The results discussed above demonstrate that the energy deposition pattern of
radiation is not the sole determinant of the yields of tlDSBs. Small differences in
DNA organization may cause changes in the induction and the subsequent chemical
processing of TLSLs and may strongly affect the form of DSBs induced – even
after exposure to high LET radiation. Worth noting is also that the differences
observed in lesion induction and evolution among cell lines exposed to HI are
largely eliminated if “naked” DNA is irradiated instead of cells.Collectively, the results presented here, as well those published before [17-19], point to an unexplored dimension in the production of DNA damage by IR.
Temporal evolution of complex radiation damage to DSBs, and the suggested role of
DNA organization in this evolution go beyond current concepts of DNA damage
induction and repair [35] and indicate aspects of DDR that warrant further investigations.It is tempting to speculate that transient, chemical stabilization of TLSLs, may
allow repair of SSBs and base damages within a non-DSBCDS, so that subsequent
conversion of the TLSL to a DNA break will not cause a DSB. Such agents may find
application in radiation protection on earth and in space, as well as in the
development of new strategies in radiation oncology [21,36,37].
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
SKS designed and performed the PFGE experiments, analyzed and interpreted the results
obtained and contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. ABT designed and
performed the cell survival experiments. EM performed cell survival experiments and
helped in the preparation of the manuscript. BJ and GTS helped design the
irradiations with heavy ions at the GSI and assisted in the interpretation of the
results obtained, as well as in the preparation of the manuscript. GI conceived the
project, assisted in the experimental design, interpreted the results obtained and
wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Additional file 1: Figure S1
Repair kinetics of exponentially growing wild type MEFs after exposure to
1GeV 62Ni ions or X-rays. Other details as in Figure 4.Click here for file
Additional file 2: Figure S2
Repair kinetics of exponentially growing Lig4 MEFs after exposure to 1GeV 62Ni ions or X-rays. Other
details as in Figure 4.Click here for file
Authors: N A Zyuzikov; K M Prise; M Z Zdzienicka; H C Newman; B D Michael; K R Trott Journal: Radiat Environ Biophys Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: G Iliakis; H Wang; A R Perrault; W Boecker; B Rosidi; F Windhofer; W Wu; J Guan; G Terzoudi; G Pantelias Journal: Cytogenet Genome Res Date: 2004 Impact factor: 1.636
Authors: K M Frank; N E Sharpless; Y Gao; J M Sekiguchi; D O Ferguson; C Zhu; J P Manis; J Horner; R A DePinho; F W Alt Journal: Mol Cell Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 17.970
Authors: Francesco Tommasino; Thomas Friedrich; Burkhard Jakob; Barbara Meyer; Marco Durante; Michael Scholz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Stefania Mamberti; Maruthi K Pabba; Alexander Rapp; M Cristina Cardoso; Michael Scholz Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Yaping Qi; John William Warmenhoven; Nicholas Thomas Henthorn; Samuel Peter Ingram; Xie George Xu; Karen Joy Kirkby; Michael John Merchant Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 6.639