Literature DB >> 23883318

Laboratory intercomparison on the γ-H2AX foci assay.

K Rothkamm1, S Horn, H Scherthan, U Rössler, A De Amicis, S Barnard, Ulrike Kulka, F Lista, V Meineke, H Braselmann, C Beinke, M Abend.   

Abstract

The focus of the study is an intercomparison of laboratories' dose-assessment performances using the γ-H2AX foci assay as a diagnostic triage tool for rapid individual radiation dose assessment. Homogenously X-irradiated (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min) blood samples for establishing calibration data (0.25-4 Gy) as well as blinded test samples (0.1-6.4 Gy) were incubated at 37°C for 2 and 24 h (repair time) and sent to the participants. The foci assay was performed according to protocols individually established in participating laboratories and therefore varied. The time taken to report dose estimates was documented for each laboratory. Additional information concerning laboratory organization/characteristics as well as assay performance was collected. The mean absolute difference (MAD) of estimated doses relative to the actual doses was calculated and radiation doses were merged into four triage categories reflecting clinical relevance to calculate accuracy, sensitivity and specificity. First γ-H2AX based dose estimates were reported 7 h after sample receipt. Estimates were similarly accurate for 2 and 24 h repair times, providing scope for its use in the early phase of a radiation exposure incident. Equal accuracy was achieved by scoring 20, 30, 40 or 50 cells per sample. However, MAD values of 0.5-0.7 Gy and 1.3-1.7 Gy divided the data sets into two groups, driven mainly by the considerable differences in foci yields between calibration and blind samples. Foci yields also varied dramatically between laboratories, highlighting reproducibility issues as an important caveat of the foci assay. Nonetheless, foci counts could distinguish high- and low-dose samples in all data sets and binary dose categories of clinical significance could be discriminated with satisfactory accuracy (mean 84%, ±0.03 SEM). Overall, the results suggest that the γ-H2AX assay is a useful tool for rapidly screening individuals for significant exposures that occurred up to at least 24 h earlier, and may help to prioritize cytogenetic dosimetry follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23883318     DOI: 10.1667/RR3238.1

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


  25 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

2.  Effect of dose rate on residual γ-H2AX levels and frequency of micronuclei in X-irradiated mouse lymphocytes.

Authors:  H C Turner; I Shuryak; M Taveras; A Bertucci; J R Perrier; C Chen; C D Elliston; G W Johnson; L B Smilenov; S A Amundson; D J Brenner
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2015-03-04       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.  Quantification of radiation-induced DNA double strand break repair foci to evaluate and predict biological responses to ionizing radiation.

Authors:  Sébastien Penninckx; Eloise Pariset; Egle Cekanaviciute; Sylvain V Costes
Journal:  NAR Cancer       Date:  2021-12-22

5.  The profiles of gamma-H2AX along with ATM/DNA-PKcs activation in the lymphocytes and granulocytes of rat and human blood exposed to gamma rays.

Authors:  Jing Wang; Lina Yin; Junxiang Zhang; Yaping Zhang; Xuxia Zhang; Defang Ding; Yun Gao; Qiang Li; Honghong Chen
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 1.925

6.  Frequency of gamma H2AX foci in healthy volunteers and health workers occupationally exposed to X-irradiation and its relevance in biological dosimetry.

Authors:  Venkateswarlu Raavi; Safa Abdul Syed Basheerudeen; Vijayalakshmi Jagannathan; Santosh Joseph; Nabo Kumar Chaudhury; Perumal Venkatachalam
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2016-06-10       Impact factor: 1.925

7.  DNA damage in blood lymphocytes in patients after (177)Lu peptide receptor radionuclide therapy.

Authors:  Uta Eberlein; Carina Nowak; Christina Bluemel; Andreas Konrad Buck; Rudolf Alexander Werner; Harry Scherthan; Michael Lassmann
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Nonlinear ionizing radiation-induced changes in eye lens cell proliferation, cyclin D1 expression and lens shape.

Authors:  Ewa Markiewicz; Stephen Barnard; Jackie Haines; Margaret Coster; Orry van Geel; Weiju Wu; Shane Richards; Elizabeth Ainsbury; Kai Rothkamm; Simon Bouffler; Roy A Quinlan
Journal:  Open Biol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 6.411

9.  Spatiotemporal dynamics of γH2AX in the mouse brain after acute irradiation at different postnatal days with special reference to the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus.

Authors:  Feng Ru Tang; Lian Liu; Hong Wang; Kimberly Jen Ni Ho; Gautam Sethi
Journal:  Aging (Albany NY)       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 5.682

10.  DNA damage focus analysis in blood samples of minipigs reveals acute partial body irradiation.

Authors:  Andreas Lamkowski; Fabien Forcheron; Diane Agay; Emad A Ahmed; Michel Drouet; Viktor Meineke; Harry Scherthan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.