Literature DB >> 23560627

Biological dosimetry by automated dicentric scoring in a simulated emergency.

Gaetan Gruel1, Eric Grégoire, Sarah Lecas, Cécile Martin, Sandrine Roch-Lefevre, Aurélie Vaurijoux, Pascale Voisin, Philippe Voisin, Joan-Francesc Barquinero.   

Abstract

Dicentric chromosome analysis remains the most widely used method in biodosimetry. It has a lower detection limit of about 0.1 Gy, and allows one to distinguish between whole- and partial-body exposures. A drawback of the dicentric analysis is that it is a time consuming method and maybe difficult to implement in a mass casualty event. To try to increase the analysis capacity, automatic dicentric scoring (ADS) using image analysis software is being incorporated in several laboratories. Here we present the results obtained in an emergency exercise simulating 50 victims. The ability to distinguish different radiations scenarios is evaluated. To simulate whole-body exposures peripheral blood samples were irradiated at doses between 0-4.7 Gy, and to simulate partial-body exposures irradiated and nonirradiated blood were mixed in different proportions. With the data obtained from the first slide analyzed (with about 300-400 cells), 32 of 34 simulated whole-body exposures were correctly classified according to radiation exposure levels. For simulated partial-body irradiations, it was possible to detect them as partial exposures at the end of the first slide analyzed but only at the highest doses. In all cases the classification was updated every time the analysis of one additional slide was finished. The comparison between our present results and those reported in the literature for manual scoring shows that for triage purposes the ADS based on 300-400 cells is similar in efficiency to classifying the cases based on manual scoring of 50 cells. However, if one accounts for the associated uncertainties and the time needed for ADS, we suggest that ADS triage scoring should be based on about 1,000 cells. For final dose estimations the number of cells to score will depend on the initial estimated dose, and on the information contributed from physical dose-reconstruction or clinical symptoms. At doses higher than 1 Gy, we propose analysis of 1,500 and for lower doses or suspected partial-body exposures, the number of cells to score should be 3,000.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23560627     DOI: 10.1667/RR3196.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Res        ISSN: 0033-7587            Impact factor:   2.841


  10 in total

Review 1.  Metabolomic applications in radiation biodosimetry: exploring radiation effects through small molecules.

Authors:  Evan L Pannkuk; Albert J Fornace; Evagelia C Laiakis
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 2.694

2.  Developing Human Radiation Biodosimetry Models: Testing Cross-Species Conversion Approaches Using an Ex Vivo Model System.

Authors:  Jin G Park; Sunirmal Paul; Natalia Briones; Jia Zeng; Kristin Gillis; Garrick Wallstrom; Joshua LaBaer; Sally A Amundson
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 2.841

Review 3.  State-of-the-Art Advances in Radiation Biodosimetry for Mass Casualty Events Involving Radiation Exposure.

Authors:  Mary Sproull; Kevin Camphausen
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2016-10-06       Impact factor: 2.841

4.  Metaphase Cells Enrichment for Efficient Use in the Dicentric Chromosome Assay.

Authors:  Max Platkov; Uzi Hadad; Ariela Burg; Inna Levitsky; Michael Zagatzki; Omer Damri; Aryeh Weiss; Yair Lauber; Shirly Amar; Lior Carmel; Raphael Gonen
Journal:  Cell Biochem Biophys       Date:  2022-10-11       Impact factor: 2.989

5.  Optimizing the Microscopy Time Schedule for Chromosomal Dosimetry of High-dose and Partial-body Irradiations.

Authors:  Volodymyr A Vinnikov
Journal:  Genome Integr       Date:  2017-01-23

Review 6.  The Application of Imaging Flow Cytometry to High-Throughput Biodosimetry.

Authors:  Ruth C Wilkins; Matthew A Rodrigues; Lindsay A Beaton-Green
Journal:  Genome Integr       Date:  2017-01-23

7.  Calibration curves by 60Co with low dose rate are different in terms of dose estimation - a comparative study.

Authors:  Mariana Esposito Mendes; Julyanne Conceição Goes de Mendonça; Suy Hwang; Marina Di Giorgio; Fabiana Farias de Lima; Neide Santos
Journal:  Genet Mol Biol       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 1.771

8.  Establishing a Reference Dose-Response Calibration Curve for Dicentric Chromosome Aberrations to Assess Accidental Radiation Exposure in Saudi Arabia.

Authors:  Ghazi A Alsbeih; Khaled S Al-Hadyan; Najla M Al-Harbi; Sara S Bin Judia; Belal A Moftah
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2020-12-15

9.  Complete Technical Scheme for Automatic Biological Dose Estimation Platform.

Authors:  Hong Dai; Junchao Feng; Huahui Bian; Weibo Chen; Youyou Wang; Yulong Liu; Wentao Hu
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2018-10-03       Impact factor: 2.658

10.  Use of human lymphocyte G0 PCCs to detect intra- and inter-chromosomal aberrations for early radiation biodosimetry and retrospective assessment of radiation-induced effects.

Authors:  Terri L Ryan; Antonio G Pantelias; Georgia I Terzoudi; Gabriel E Pantelias; Adayabalam S Balajee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.