Literature DB >> 26333407

Microirradiation techniques in radiobiological research.

Guido A Drexler1, Miguel J Ruiz-Gómez.   

Abstract

The aim of this work is to review the uses of laser microirradiation and ion microbeam techniques within the scope of radiobiological research. Laser microirradiation techniques can be used for many different purposes. In a specific condition, through the use of pulsed lasers, cell lysis can be produced for subsequent separation of different analytes. Microsurgery allows for the identification and isolation of tissue sections, single cells and subcellular components, using different types of lasers. The generation of different types of DNA damage, via this type of microirradiation, allows for the investigation of DNA dynamics. Ion microbeams are important tools in radiobiological research. There are only a limited number of facilities worldwide where radiobiological experiments can be performed. In the beginning, research was mostly focused on the bystander effect. Nowadays, with more sophisticated molecular and cellular biological techniques, ion microirradiation is used to unravel molecular processes in the field of radiobiology. These include DNA repair protein kinetics or chromatin modifications at the site of DNA damage. With the increasing relevance of charged particles in tumour therapy and new concepts on how to generate them, ion microbeam facilities are able to address unresolved questions concerning particle tumour therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26333407     DOI: 10.1007/s12038-015-9535-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biosci        ISSN: 0250-5991            Impact factor:   1.826


  98 in total

1.  Induction of sister chromatid exchanges by extremely low doses of alpha-particles.

Authors:  H Nagasawa; J B Little
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1992-11-15       Impact factor: 12.701

2.  Irradiation of parts of individual cells.

Authors:  R E ZIRKLE; W BLOOM
Journal:  Science       Date:  1953-05-08       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 3.  A new paradigm in radioadaptive response developing from microbeam research.

Authors:  Hideki Matsumoto; Masanori Tomita; Kensuke Otsuka; Masanori Hatashita
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 2.724

4.  Competition effect in DNA damage response.

Authors:  Christoph Greubel; Volker Hable; Guido A Drexler; Andreas Hauptner; Steffen Dietzel; Hilmar Strickfaden; Iris Baur; Reiner Krücken; Thomas Cremer; Günther Dollinger; Anna A Friedl
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2008-07-23       Impact factor: 1.925

5.  Microbeam radiation-induced tissue damage depends on the stage of vascular maturation.

Authors:  Sara Sabatasso; Jean Albert Laissue; Ruslan Hlushchuk; Werner Graber; Alberto Bravin; Elke Bräuer-Krisch; Stéphanie Corde; Hans Blattmann; Guenther Gruber; Valentin Djonov
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-08-01       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  No evidence for a different RBE between pulsed and continuous 20 MeV protons.

Authors:  T E Schmid; G Dollinger; A Hauptner; V Hable; C Greubel; S Auer; A A Friedl; M Molls; B Röper
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.841

7.  PARP-2, A novel mammalian DNA damage-dependent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase.

Authors:  J C Amé; V Rolli; V Schreiber; C Niedergang; F Apiou; P Decker; S Muller; T Höger; J Ménissier-de Murcia; G de Murcia
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  1999-06-18       Impact factor: 5.157

Review 8.  Radiation induced non-targeted response: mechanism and potential clinical implications.

Authors:  Tom K Hei; Hongning Zhou; Yunfei Chai; Brian Ponnaiya; Vladimir N Ivanov
Journal:  Curr Mol Pharmacol       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.339

9.  Biodosimetric quantification of short-term synchrotron microbeam versus broad-beam radiation damage to mouse skin using a dermatopathological scoring system.

Authors:  R C U Priyadarshika; J C Crosbie; B Kumar; P A W Rogers
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 10.  Microbeam studies of the bystander response.

Authors:  Kevin M Prise; Giuseppe Schettino; Boris Vojnovic; Oleg Belyakov; Chunlin Shao
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 2.724

View more
  4 in total

1.  Neutrophil accumulation and NET release contribute to thrombosis in HIT.

Authors:  Kandace Gollomp; Minna Kim; Ian Johnston; Vincent Hayes; John Welsh; Gowthami M Arepally; Mark Kahn; Michele P Lambert; Adam Cuker; Douglas B Cines; Lubica Rauova; M Anna Kowalska; Mortimer Poncz
Journal:  JCI Insight       Date:  2018-09-20

2.  Iodine nanoparticles enhance radiotherapy of intracerebral human glioma in mice and increase efficacy of chemotherapy.

Authors:  James F Hainfeld; Sharif M Ridwan; Yaroslav Stanishevskiy; Rahul Panchal; Daniel N Slatkin; Henry M Smilowitz
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-03-14       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Ultra-soft X-ray system for imaging the early cellular responses to X-ray induced DNA damage.

Authors:  Jakub A Kochan; Matthias van den Belt; Julia von der Lippe; Emilie C B Desclos; Barbara Steurer; Ron A Hoebe; Enzo M Scutigliani; Jan Verhoeven; Jan Stap; Ruben Bosch; Meindert Rijpkema; Carel van Oven; Henk A van Veen; Irene Stellingwerf; Lianne E M Vriend; Jurgen A Marteijn; Jacob A Aten; Przemek M Krawczyk
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 16.971

4.  Depletion of Histone Demethylase Jarid1A Resulting in Histone Hyperacetylation and Radiation Sensitivity Does Not Affect DNA Double-Strand Break Repair.

Authors:  Corina Penterling; Guido A Drexler; Claudia Böhland; Ramona Stamp; Christina Wilke; Herbert Braselmann; Randolph B Caldwell; Judith Reindl; Stefanie Girst; Christoph Greubel; Christian Siebenwirth; Wael Y Mansour; Kerstin Borgmann; Günther Dollinger; Kristian Unger; Anna A Friedl
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.