Literature DB >> 23862692

Comparison of established and emerging biodosimetry assays.

K Rothkamm1, C Beinke, H Romm, C Badie, Y Balagurunathan, S Barnard, N Bernard, H Boulay-Greene, M Brengues, A De Amicis, S De Sanctis, R Greither, F Herodin, A Jones, S Kabacik, T Knie, U Kulka, F Lista, P Martigne, A Missel, J Moquet, U Oestreicher, A Peinnequin, T Poyot, U Roessler, H Scherthan, B Terbrueggen, H Thierens, M Valente, A Vral, F Zenhausern, V Meineke, H Braselmann, M Abend.   

Abstract

Rapid biodosimetry tools are required to assist with triage in the case of a large-scale radiation incident. Here, we aimed to determine the dose-assessment accuracy of the well-established dicentric chromosome assay (DCA) and cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay (CBMN) in comparison to the emerging γ-H2AX foci and gene expression assays for triage mode biodosimetry and radiation injury assessment. Coded blood samples exposed to 10 X-ray doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min) of up to 6.4 Gy were sent to participants for dose estimation. Report times were documented for each laboratory and assay. The mean absolute difference (MAD) of estimated doses relative to the true doses was calculated. We also merged doses into binary dose categories of clinical relevance and examined accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the assays. Dose estimates were reported by the first laboratories within 0.3-0.4 days of receipt of samples for the γ-H2AX and gene expression assays compared to 2.4 and 4 days for the DCA and CBMN assays, respectively. Irrespective of the assay we found a 2.5-4-fold variation of interlaboratory accuracy per assay and lowest MAD values for the DCA assay (0.16 Gy) followed by CBMN (0.34 Gy), gene expression (0.34 Gy) and γ-H2AX (0.45 Gy) foci assay. Binary categories of dose estimates could be discriminated with equal efficiency for all assays, but at doses ≥1.5 Gy a 10% decrease in efficiency was observed for the foci assay, which was still comparable to the CBMN assay. In conclusion, the DCA has been confirmed as the gold standard biodosimetry method, but in situations where speed and throughput are more important than ultimate accuracy, the emerging rapid molecular assays have the potential to become useful triage tools.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23862692      PMCID: PMC4094341          DOI: 10.1667/RR3231.1

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


  23 in total

1.  The role of cytogenetics in early triage of radiation casualties.

Authors:  D C Lloyd; A A Edwards; J E Moquet; Y C Guerrero-Carbajal
Journal:  Appl Radiat Isot       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 1.513

Review 2.  Misrepair of radiation-induced DNA double-strand breaks and its relevance for tumorigenesis and cancer treatment (review).

Authors:  Kai Rothkamm; Markus Löbrich
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.650

3.  Gene expression comparisons performed for biodosimetry purposes on in vitro peripheral blood cellular subsets and irradiated individuals.

Authors:  A Riecke; C G Rufa; M Cordes; J Hartmann; V Meineke; M Abend
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2012-07-07       Impact factor: 2.841

Review 4.  Limitations associated with analysis of cytogenetic data for biological dosimetry.

Authors:  Volodymyr A Vinnikov; Elizabeth A Ainsbury; Nataliya A Maznyk; David C Lloyd; Kai Rothkamm
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.841

5.  WHO 1st consultation on the development of a global biodosimetry laboratories network for radiation emergencies (BioDoseNet).

Authors:  William F Blakely; Zhanat Carr; May Chin-May Chu; Renu Dayal-Drager; Kenzo Fujimoto; Michael Hopmeir; Ulrike Kulka; Patricia Lillis-Hearne; Gordon K Livingston; David C Lloyd; Natalie Maznyk; Maria Del Rosario Perez; Horst Romm; Yoshio Takashima; Phillipe Voisin; Ruth C Wilkins; Mitsuaki A Yoshida
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.841

6.  Realising the European Network of Biodosimetry (RENEB).

Authors:  U Kulka; L Ainsbury; M Atkinson; J F Barquinero; L Barrios; C Beinke; G Bognar; A Cucu; F Darroudi; P Fattibene; O Gil; E Gregoire; V Hadjidekova; S Haghdoost; R Herranz; A Jaworska; C Lindholm; R Mkacher; S Mörtl; A Montoro; J Moquet; M Moreno; A Ogbazghi; U Oestreicher; F Palitti; G Pantelias; I Popescu; M J Prieto; H Romm; K Rothkamm; L Sabatier; S Sommer; G Terzoudi; A Testa; H Thierens; F Trompier; I Turai; V Vandersickel; P Vaz; P Voisin; A Vral; F Ugletveit; C Woda; A Wojcik
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2012-08-23       Impact factor: 0.972

7.  Q(γ-H2AX), an analysis method for partial-body radiation exposure using γ-H2AX in nonhuman primate lymphocytes.

Authors:  Christophe E Redon; Asako J Nakamura; Ksenia Gouliaeva; Arifur Rahman; William F Blakely; William M Bonner
Journal:  Radiat Meas       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 1.898

8.  Leukocyte DNA damage after multi-detector row CT: a quantitative biomarker of low-level radiation exposure.

Authors:  Kai Rothkamm; Sheena Balroop; Jane Shekhdar; Patricia Fernie; Vicky Goh
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  gamma-H2AX as protein biomarker for radiation exposure.

Authors:  Kai Rothkamm; Simon Horn
Journal:  Ann Ist Super Sanita       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.663

10.  Gamma-H2AX-based dose estimation for whole and partial body radiation exposure.

Authors:  Simon Horn; Stephen Barnard; Kai Rothkamm
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  44 in total

1.  Use of a Humanized Mouse Model System in the Validation of Human Radiation Biodosimetry Standards.

Authors:  Monica Pujol-Canadell; Erik Young; Lubomir Smilenov
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 2.841

2.  Evaluating the Special Needs of The Military for Radiation Biodosimetry for Tactical Warfare Against Deployed Troops: Comparing Military to Civilian Needs for Biodosimetry Methods.

Authors:  Ann Barry Flood; Arif N Ali; Holly K Boyle; Gaixin Du; Victoria A Satinsky; Steven G Swarts; Benjamin B Williams; Eugene Demidenko; Wilson Schreiber; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.316

3.  Whole-blood immunoassay for γH2AX as a radiation biodosimetry assay with minimal sample preparation.

Authors:  Matthew L Johnston; Erik F Young; Kenneth L Shepard
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2015-05-03       Impact factor: 1.925

4.  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

5.  Automatic versus manual lymphocyte fixation: impact on dose estimation using the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay.

Authors:  Christina Beinke; Matthias Port; Michael Abend
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 1.925

6.  Chromosome Translocations, Inversions and Telomere Length for Retrospective Biodosimetry on Exposed U.S. Atomic Veterans.

Authors:  Miles J McKenna; Erin Robinson; Lynn Taylor; Christopher Tompkins; Michael N Cornforth; Steven L Simon; Susan M Bailey
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 2.841

7.  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

8.  Advances in a framework to compare bio-dosimetry methods for triage in large-scale radiation events.

Authors:  Ann Barry Flood; Holly K Boyle; Gaixin Du; Eugene Demidenko; Roberto J Nicolalde; Benjamin B Williams; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 0.972

9.  ROC Analysis for Evaluation of Radiation Biodosimetry Technologies.

Authors:  Benjamin B Williams; Ann Barry Flood; Eugene Demidenko; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 0.972

10.  Assessment of absorbed dose of gamma rays using the simultaneous determination of inactive hemoglobin derivatives as a biological dosimeter.

Authors:  A M M Attia; W M Aboulthana; G M Hassan; E Aboelezz
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2019-11-16       Impact factor: 1.925

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.