| Literature DB >> 25401336 |
Baoping Zhang1, Bin Liu2, Hong Zhang3, Jizeng Wang1.
Abstract
The adverse effect induced by carbon ion radiation (CIR) is still an unavoidable hazard to the treatment object. Thus, evaluation of its adverse effects on the body is a critical problem with respect to radiation therapy. We aimed to investigate the change between the configuration and mechanical properties of erythrocytes induced by radiation and found differences in both the configuration and the mechanical properties with involving in morphological remodeling process. Syrian hamsters were subjected to whole-body irradiation with carbon ion beams (1, 2, 4, and 6 Gy) or X-rays (2, 4, 6, and 12 Gy) for 3, 14 and 28 days. Erythrocytes in peripheral blood and bone marrow were collected for cytomorphological analysis. The mechanical properties of the erythrocytes were determined using atomic force microscopy, and the expression of the cytoskeletal protein spectrin-α1 was analyzed via western blotting. The results showed that dynamic changes were evident in erythrocytes exposed to different doses of carbon ion beams compared with X-rays and the control (0 Gy). The magnitude of impairment of the cell number and cellular morphology manifested the subtle variation according to the irradiation dose. In particular, the differences in the size, shape and mechanical properties of the erythrocytes were well exhibited. Furthermore, immunoblot data showed that the expression of the cytoskeletal protein spectrin-α1 was changed after irradiation, and there was a common pattern among its substantive characteristics in the irradiated group. Based on these findings, the present study concluded that CIR could induce a change in mechanical properties during morphological remodeling of erythrocytes. According to the unique characteristics of the biomechanical categories, we deduce that changes in cytomorphology and mechanical properties can be measured to evaluate the adverse effects generated by tumor radiotherapy. Additionally, for the first time, the current study provides a new strategy for enhancing the assessment of the curative effects and safety of clinical radiotherapy, as well as reducing adverse effects.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25401336 PMCID: PMC4234377 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112624
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Force distance curve taken on the erythrocyte, Extend (or approach) (dark red) and retract (dark) curve clearly show hysteresis owing to the viscous and plastic behavior of the erythrocyte.
(A) Cantilever deflection dependence on the tip sample distance (Z coordinate), and determination of the force-versus-indentation curves for control erythrocytes. (B) The straight line corresponds to curves measured on hard, non-deformable surface (glass coverslip) as the calibration curves. Lowercase letters show the marching trajectory of the probe in the whole process, and it consists of four steps, approach, contact, retract and separation (in A).
Figure 2Photographs of analysis the changes of gross morphology of erythrocytes in blood smear at 3d after whole-body exposure to 12C6+ ions or X-rays (by 100×oil immersion observation).
Panel a: Non-irradiated control group erythrocytes (0 Gy); Panel b–d: erythrocytes of carbon ions radiation groups (Radiation dose: 2 Gy, 4 Gy and 6 Gy); and Panel e–g: erythrocytes of X-rays radiation groups (Radiation dose: 4 Gy, 6 Gy and 12 Gy). Black arrows indicate the morphological changes of erythrocytes. The scale bar is 10 µm.
Measurement of the changes of erythrocytes shape by induced of 12C6+ ions and X-rays radiation in Mesocricetus auratus.
| Group | Cells No. | Length(µm) | Width(µm) | Perimeter(µm) | Thickness(µm) | ROI area(µm2) | Volume(µm3) |
|
| 1500 | 7.25±0.13 | 6.12±0.10 | 584.14±36.78 | 2.0 | 20517.44±3651.02 | 41.03±7.30 |
|
| 410 | 6.85±0.15▴ | 5.96±0.20 | 563.95±57.72▴ | 2.0 | 19019.15±3120.58 | 38.04±6.24▴ |
|
| 376 | 6.72±0.16▴ | 5.85±0.11▴ | 547.98±47.86▴ | 2.0 | 18178.41±2933.45 | 36.36±5.87▴ |
|
| 373 | 5.96±0.24▴ | 5.55±0.15▴ | 529.38±40.77▴ | 2.0 | 17317.20±2419.97 | 34.63±4.84▴ |
|
| 652 | 7.0±0.11▴▴ | 5.8±0.16▴▴ | 570.7±57.43▴▴ | 2.0 | 19496.54±2975.36 | 38.99±5.95▴▴ |
|
| 325 | 6.8±0.15▴▴ | 5.6±0.12▴▴ | 535.6±37.50▴▴ | 2.0 | 18659.76±2260.22 | 37.32±4.52▴▴ |
|
| 554 | 6.1±0.18▴▴ | 5.4±0.10▴▴ | 519.0±45.65▴▴ | 2.0 | 17734.23±2747.42 | 35.47±5.49▴▴ |
Note, Measurement of the morphological differences of erythrocytes had indicated the obvious impact of 12C6+ ions or X-rays radiation with Image J software. And these general varies mainly includes the physical and chemical parameters of the erythrocyte, such as length, width, perimeter, thickness, ROI area and volume (of average value). Because of the average thickness of erythrocytes in mammals is around in the range of 1.0–2.5 µm, and using an optical microscope in the experiment, so as to calculate the volume, we taken the average thickness value of 2.0 µm to obtain the relative size of erythrocytes. And in the list of Tab., ▴ Black triangle symbols significant statistical significance compared with the control group in carbon ion radiation (p<0.05), but ▴▴ double triangle line represent the differences results by inducing X-rays (p<0.05). (In detail, for length, Control vs C ions-2Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs C ions-4Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs C ions-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs X rays-4Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs X rays-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs X rays-12Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; for width, Control vs C ions-2Gy, p = 0.479, p>0.05; Control vs C ions-4Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs C ions-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs X rays-4Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs X rays-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs X rays-12Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; for perimeter, Control vs C ions-2Gy, p = 0.002, p<0.05; Control vs C ions-4Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs C ions-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs X rays-4Gy, p = 0.027, p<0.05; Control vs X rays-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs X rays-12Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; for volume, Control vs C ions-2Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs C ions-4Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs C ions-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs X rays-4Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs X rays-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05; Control vs X rays-12Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.05.).
Figure 3The distribution characteristics of erythrocytes in BM at 3d after exposed by different doses of 12C6+ ions or X-rays.
Cytology analysis the distribution of erythrocytes in BM. In detailed, Panel a: Non-irradiated control group erythrocytes (0Gy); Panel b–d: erythrocytes of carbon ions radiation groups (Radiation dose: 2Gy, 4Gy and 6Gy); panel e–g: erythrocytes of X-rays radiation groups (Radiation dose: 4Gy, 6Gy and 12Gy). And BM aspirate smear from irradiated golden hamster showing abnormal erythroblasts indicative of a cell-division defect, or dysplasia. The cytology image was observed with 100×oil immersion, in the picture, pink represents the erythrocytes.
Figure 4The number of erythroid cells in BM accounted for the relative percentage of the total of BM cells after exposed carbon ion beams or X-rays.
From the column chart showed that the pronormoblast and basophilic erythroblast seemed upward tendency with the increasing of absorbed dose in carbon ions radiation, but the change in X-rays radiation groups seemed to be not obvious, as for the polychromatophilic erythroblast and normoblast, the percentage of cells number had decreased significantly in two types of irradiation, and the differences between groups had significant statistical significance (p<0.05).
Figure 5Effects of radiation on micromorphology in erythrocytes membrane.
(A–L) Surface imaging of erythrocytes induced by carbon ion beams and X-rays radiation using biological type atomic force microscopy; and the graph A, B and C showed respectively for the Height measured image, Deflection image and 3D image at scan scale of 50 µm (Fast)×50 µm bar (Slow), [for A:(1) Control; (2) C ions 2Gy; (3) C ions 4Gy; (4) C ions 6Gy; (5) X-rays 4Gy; (6) X-rays 6Gy; (7) X-rays 12Gy; for B: (1–1) Control; (2–1) C ions 2Gy; (3–1) C ions 4Gy; (4–1) C ions 6Gy; (5–1) X-rays 4Gy; (6–1) X-rays 6Gy; (7–1) X-rays 12Gy; for C: (1–11) Control; (2–11) C ions 2Gy; (3–11) C ions 4Gy; (4–11) C ions 6Gy; (5–11) X-rays 4Gy; (6–11) X-rays 6Gy; (7–11) X-rays 12Gy]. But the graph D–F showed respectively for the Height measured image, Deflection image and 3D image at scan scale of 25 µm (Fast) ×25 µm bar (Slow); the graph G–I showed respectively for the Height measured image, Deflection image and 3D image at scan scale of 12.5 µm (Fast) ×12.5 µm bar (Slow); the graph J–L showed respectively for the Height measured image, Deflection image and 3D image at scan scale of 5 µm (Fast) × 5 µm bar (Slow). In addition, for a smaller scan scale was the same grouping as 50 µm (Fast) × 50 µm bar (Slow) bar. Here, the schematic showed different doses and type radiation for the influence of micromorphology of erythrocytes, and this fine change was captured by AFM.
Figure 6Histograms of erythrocytes elasticity modulus distributions induced by C ions or X-rays exposed for 3, 14 and 28 days.
The bar graph (A), (B) and (C) represented control erythrocytes (0 Gy), 3d, 14d and 28d, respectively; the bar graph (D), (E) and (F) represented carbon ions 2 Gy, 3d, 14d and 28d, respectively; the bar graph (G), (H) and (I) represented carbon ions 4 Gy, 3d, 14d and 28d, respectively; the bar graph (J), (K) and (L) represented carbon ions 6 Gy, 3d, 14d and 28d, respectively. But the bar graph (M), (N) and (O) showed X-rays 4 Gy, 3d, 14d and 28d, respectively; the bar graph (P), (Q) and (R) showed X-rays 6 Gy, 3d, 14d and 28d; the bar graph (S), (T) and (U) showed X-rays 12 Gy, 3d, 14d and 28d, respectively.
Figure 7The change of elasticity modules of erythrocytes induced by C ions or X-rays radiation.
And the groups displayed as a function of the dependent manner on dosage (A and B) and time (C and D). Error bars represent half-widths of the normal distributions fitted to the respective histograms.
Figure 8Variations of elasticity modulus for different doses of radiation in erythrocyte samples–control erythrocytes, and after suffering from the irradiation dose, the distribution effect of elasticity modulus was showed by scatters dots
(A–F).
Figure 9Spectrin-α1 is specifically targeted to drive erythrocyte skeleton impairment by C ions or X-rays radiation induction.
Western blotting analyzed of the change of erythrocytes skeleton proteins spectrin-α1 expression after treated with radiation (A). (B) After C ions exposed at 3, 14 and 28d, the change of skeleton protein expression in different radiation groups. (C) After X-rays exposed at 3, 14 and 28d, and skeleton protein expression was also monitored by WB in different radiation groups. Error bars represent standard deviation from more triplicate valid data.
Average values of Young’s modulus and mean density values of spectrin-α1 expression for the change of RBCs distributions according to different radiation groups.
| Group | Spectrin-α1 protein expression(mean density) | Young’s modulus(kPa) | ||||
| 3d | 14d | 28d | 3d | 14d | 28d | |
|
| 1.21±0.07 | 1.22±0.62 | 1.22±0.64 | 12.23±1.48 | 12.62±1.71 | 12.02±1.38 |
|
| 0.99±0.16▾ | 1.03±0.19▾ | 1.39±0.12▾## | 10.62±1.57 | 9.42±0.66 | 8.22±1.33 |
|
| 0.88±0.14▾ | 0.82±0.13▾ | 1.10±0.18▾## | 6.02±0.60Δ# | 5.77±0.80Δ# | 5.17±0.60Δ# |
|
| 0.75±0.15▾ | 0.71±0.17▾ | 0.57±0.13▾## | 5.08±0.59Δ# | 4.98±0.76Δ# | 4.72±0.74Δ# |
|
| 1.86±0.26▾ | 2.17±0.14 | 1.16±0.14## | 13.05±1.84 | 11.09±1.77 | 10.16±1.35 |
|
| 1.95±0.20▾ | 1.36±0.17 | 0.95±0.17▾## | 9.20±2.05Δ | 8.40±1.91Δ | 8.82±1.17Δ |
|
| 0.67±0.16▾ | 1.11±0.27▾ | 0.97±0.14▾ | 5.18±0.94Δ# | 5.23±0.80Δ# | 5.21±0.66Δ# |
Errors are a standard deviation of the mean (SEM).
Note, Δ White triangles represents the statistical significance compared with the control group, #the pound sign shows the plot as time goes on and the difference mean Young’s modulus(E) between each dose group (mean ± SEM). (for 3d, Control vs C ions-2Gy, p = 0.114, p>0.05; Control vs C ions-4Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs C ions-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs X rays-4Gy, p = 0.200, p>0.05; Control vs X rays-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs X rays-12Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; for 14d, Control vs C ions-2Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs C ions-4Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs C ions-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs X rays-4Gy, p = 0.243, p>0.05; Control vs X -rays-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs X rays-12Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01;for 28d, Control vs C ions-2Gy, p = 0.095, p>0.05; Control vs C ions-4Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs C ions-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs X -rays-4Gy, p = 0.871, p>0.05; Control vs X rays-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs X rays-12Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01). But ▾ blank triangles standards for the differences of spectrin-α1 protein average level (sp) and mean Young’s modulus (E) in different time points (mean ± SEM). The distinction was analyzed and we obtained an obvious statistical significance. ##Double pound sign shows the plot as time goes on and the difference of protein between each dose group. (for 3d, Control vs C ions-2Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs C ions-4Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs C ions-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs X rays-4Gy, p = 0.013, p<0.05; Control vs X rays-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs X rays-12Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; for 14d, Control vs C ions-2Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs C -ions-4Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs C ions-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs X rays-4Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs X rays-6Gy, p = 0.020, p<0.05; Control vs X rays-12Gy, p = 0.023, p<0.05; for 28d, Control vs C -ions-2Gy, p = 0.010, p<0.05; Control vs C ions-4Gy, p = 0.046, p<0.05; Control vs C ions-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs X rays-4Gy, p = 0.341, p>0.05; Control vs X rays-6Gy, p = 0.000, p<0.01; Control vs X rays-12Gy, p = 0.002, p<0.01).
Figure 10Spatial correlation of nanoscale modulus and spectrin-α1 protein expression with different doses of C ions or X-rays irradiated.
With the increasing of radiation dosage, the relative protein expression of spectrin-α1 (sp) seemed more spatially correlated to elastic modulus (E) than low dose radiation (A–F). Comparison of correlation of the modulus in the same areas with Pearson’s testing. In control erythrocyte samples, there appeared to be non-correlation among the Young’s modulus in high-modulus regions, or low-modulus regions and the expression of spectrin-α1 protein. After treated with the radiation, the average elastic modulus was reduced and areas of cell membrane appeared to be more correlated with the modulus. Through the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between modulus and spectrin-α1protein level by western blotting detection. Reflective of these findings, after exposure by carbon ion beams at 3 days, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) between modulus and spectrin-α1 protein expression were relatively strong but significant (r3c = 0.678, p<0.01) compared with others time points; At 14 days irradiated by carbon ions, Pearson’s correlation coefficient between them showed positive correlation (r14c = 0.639, p<0.01); at 28 days irradiated by carbon ions, the correlation coefficient was (r28c = 0.438, p<0.01). For X-rays, there were similar radiation effects with carbon ion beams in different groups, respectively, at 3, 14 and 28 days, the correlation coefficient were (r3x = 0.390, p<0.05), (r14x = 0.301, p<0.01) and (r28x = 0.353, p<0.01).
Figure 11This picture shown the assembly structure of the scaffold protein spectrin and its spatial configuration, and were proposed a deformation hypothesis of our model.
(A) The figure was a schematic diagram of spectrin and other cytoskeletal molecules. (B) Stereoview ribbon diagram of the overall structure of spectrin protein in all the repeats around the kink region. The first and second repeat (α, β subunit) were shown in light blue, and the linker region between repeats in purple, Residues were numbered according to the SWISS-PROT NP_003117.2 entry, and the residues from 1 to 2149 aa of Homo sapiens. Lastly, the software of the PyMOL Molecular Graphics Systerm was used to simulate the molecular structure, including a complete of the molecular structure and partial structure were displayed. (C) A series of random deformation process will be shown. The figure was α-spectrin in dark red band, and β-spectrin with a white band, the shape of saw tooth was rupture boundary. C1 represented for completely without any deformation, then, C2, C3 and C4 respectively shown that from a set of skeleton to three groups of skeleton were broken. But the case of CN manifested randomly the fracture of cytoskeletal protein. Thus, this phenomenon could reflect the uninterrupted and dynamic of changes from small deformation to large deformation during the radiation, and more details were explained in the article.