Julie Depuydt1, Ans Baeyens2, Stephen Barnard3, Christina Beinke4, Anett Benedek5, Philip Beukes2, Iwona Buraczewska6, Firouz Darroudi7, Stefania De Sanctis8, Inmaculada Dominguez9, Octávia Monteiro Gil10, Valeria Hadjidekova11, Enikő Kis5, Ulrike Kulka12, Florigio Lista8, Katalin Lumniczky5, Radhia M'kacher13, Jayne Moquet3, Doina Obreja14, Ursula Oestreicher1, Jelena Pajic15, Nuria Pastor9, Ljubomira Popova11, Elisa Regalbuto8, Michelle Ricoul13, Laure Sabatier13, Jacobus Slabbert2, Sylwester Sommer6, Antonella Testa16, Hubert Thierens1, Andrzej Wojcik17, Anne Vral1. 1. a Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences , Ghent University , Gent , Belgium. 2. b National Research Foundation (NRF) iThemba LABS , Somerset West , South Africa. 3. c Public Health England , Centre for Radiation Chemical and Environmental Hazards , Chilton , UK. 4. d Bundeswehr Institut für Radiobiology, Universität Ulm , Munich , Germany. 5. e National Public Health Centre - National Research Directorate for Radiobiology and Radiohygiene , Budapest , Hungary. 6. f Institut Chemii i Techniki Jadrowej , Poland. 7. g Leiden University Medical Center , Leiden , The Netherlands. 8. h Army Medical and Veterinary Research Center , Rome , Italy. 9. i University of Sevilla , Sevilla , Spain. 10. j Centro de Ciências e Tecnologias Nucleares , Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa , Bobadela-LRS , Portugal. 11. k National Center for Radiobiology and Radiation Protection , Sofia , Bulgaria. 12. l Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz , Department Radiation Protection and Health , Oberschleissheim , Germany. 13. m Laboratoire de Radiobiologie et Oncologie , Commissariat à l'Energy Atomique , France. 14. n Institutul National de Sanatate Publica , Bucuresti , Romania. 15. o Serbian Institute of Occupational Health "Dr Dragomir Karajovic", Radiation Protection Center , Belgrado , Serbia. 16. p Agenzia Nazionale per le Nuove Tecnologie, l'Energia e lo Sviluppo Economico Sostenibile , Rome , Italy. 17. q Institute Molecular Biosciences, Stockholm University , Stockholm , Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the framework of the 'Realizing the European Network of Biodosimetry' (RENEB) project, two intercomparison exercises were conducted to assess the suitability of an optimized version of the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay, and to evaluate the capacity of a large laboratory network performing biodosimetry for radiation emergency triages. Twelve European institutions participated in the first exercise, and four non-RENEB labs were added in the second one. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Irradiated blood samples were shipped to participating labs, whose task was to culture these samples and provide a blind dose estimate. Micronucleus analysis was performed by automated, semi-automated and manual procedures. RESULTS: The dose estimates provided by network laboratories were in good agreement with true administered doses. The most accurate estimates were reported for low dose points (≤ 0.94 Gy). For higher dose points (≥ 2.7 Gy) a larger variation in estimates was observed, though in the second exercise the number of acceptable estimates increased satisfactorily. Higher accuracy was achieved with the semi-automated method. CONCLUSION: The results of the two exercises performed by our network demonstrate that the micronucleus assay is a useful tool for large-scale radiation emergencies, and can be successfully implemented within a large network of laboratories.
PURPOSE: In the framework of the 'Realizing the European Network of Biodosimetry' (RENEB) project, two intercomparison exercises were conducted to assess the suitability of an optimized version of the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay, and to evaluate the capacity of a large laboratory network performing biodosimetry for radiation emergency triages. Twelve European institutions participated in the first exercise, and four non-RENEB labs were added in the second one. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Irradiated blood samples were shipped to participating labs, whose task was to culture these samples and provide a blind dose estimate. Micronucleus analysis was performed by automated, semi-automated and manual procedures. RESULTS: The dose estimates provided by network laboratories were in good agreement with true administered doses. The most accurate estimates were reported for low dose points (≤ 0.94 Gy). For higher dose points (≥ 2.7 Gy) a larger variation in estimates was observed, though in the second exercise the number of acceptable estimates increased satisfactorily. Higher accuracy was achieved with the semi-automated method. CONCLUSION: The results of the two exercises performed by our network demonstrate that the micronucleus assay is a useful tool for large-scale radiation emergencies, and can be successfully implemented within a large network of laboratories.
Authors: Anna Giovanetti; Raffaella Marconi; Noha Awad; Hala Abuzied; Neveen Agamy; Mohamed Barakat; Cecilia Bartoleschi; Gianluca Bossi; Marco Canfora; Amr A Elsaid; Laura Ioannilli; Horeya M Ismail; Yasmine Amr Issa; Flavia Novelli; Maria Chiara Pardini; Claudio Pioli; Paola Pinnarò; Giuseppe Sanguineti; Mohamed M Tahoun; Riccardo Turchi; Lidia Strigari Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 4.379