PURPOSE: Dose assessment intercomparisons within the RENEB network were performed for triage biodosimetry analyzing G0-lymphocyte PCC for harmonization, standardization and optimization of the PCC assay. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comparative analysis among different partners for dose assessment included shipment of PCC-slides and captured images to construct dose-response curves for up to 6 Gy γ-rays. Accident simulation exercises were performed to assess the suitability of the PCC assay by detecting speed of analysis and minimum number of cells required for categorization of potentially exposed individuals. RESULTS: Calibration data based on Giemsa-stained fragments in excess of 46 PCC were obtained by different partners using galleries of PCC images for each dose-point. Mean values derived from all scores yielded a linear dose-response with approximately 4 excess-fragments/cell/Gy. To unify scoring criteria, exercises were carried out using coded PCC-slides and/or coded irradiated blood samples. Analysis of samples received 24 h post-exposure was successfully performed using Giemsa staining (1 excess-fragment/cell/Gy) or centromere/telomere FISH-staining for dicentrics. CONCLUSIONS: Dose assessments by RENEB partners using appropriate calibration curves were mostly in good agreement. The PCC assay is quick and reliable for whole- or partial-body triage biodosimetry by scoring excess-fragments or dicentrics in G0-lymphocytes. Particularly, analysis of Giemsa-stained excess PCC-fragments is simple, inexpensive and its automation could increase throughput and scoring objectivity of the PCC assay.
PURPOSE: Dose assessment intercomparisons within the RENEB network were performed for triage biodosimetry analyzing G0-lymphocyte PCC for harmonization, standardization and optimization of the PCC assay. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comparative analysis among different partners for dose assessment included shipment of PCC-slides and captured images to construct dose-response curves for up to 6 Gy γ-rays. Accident simulation exercises were performed to assess the suitability of the PCC assay by detecting speed of analysis and minimum number of cells required for categorization of potentially exposed individuals. RESULTS: Calibration data based on Giemsa-stained fragments in excess of 46 PCC were obtained by different partners using galleries of PCC images for each dose-point. Mean values derived from all scores yielded a linear dose-response with approximately 4 excess-fragments/cell/Gy. To unify scoring criteria, exercises were carried out using coded PCC-slides and/or coded irradiated blood samples. Analysis of samples received 24 h post-exposure was successfully performed using Giemsa staining (1 excess-fragment/cell/Gy) or centromere/telomere FISH-staining for dicentrics. CONCLUSIONS: Dose assessments by RENEB partners using appropriate calibration curves were mostly in good agreement. The PCC assay is quick and reliable for whole- or partial-body triage biodosimetry by scoring excess-fragments or dicentrics in G0-lymphocytes. Particularly, analysis of Giemsa-stained excess PCC-fragments is simple, inexpensive and its automation could increase throughput and scoring objectivity of the PCC assay.
Authors: A I Lamadrid Boada; I Romero Aguilera; G I Terzoudi; J E González Mesa; G Pantelias; O García Journal: Mutat Res Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 2.433
Authors: Marcy B Grace; Brian R Moyer; Joanna Prasher; Kenneth D Cliffer; Narayani Ramakrishnan; Joseph Kaminski; C Norman Coleman; Ronald G Manning; Bert W Maidment; Richard Hatchett Journal: Health Phys Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 1.316
Authors: F Darroudi; A T Natarajan; P A Bentvelzen; P J Heidt; A Van Rotterdam; J Zoetelief; J J Broerse Journal: Int J Radiat Biol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 2.694
Authors: Martin Bucher; Tina Weiss; David Endesfelder; Francois Trompier; Yoann Ristic; Patrizia Kunert; Helmut Schlattl; Augusto Giussani; Ursula Oestreicher Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-05-17
Authors: M A Suresh Kumar; Evagelia C Laiakis; Shanaz A Ghandhi; Shad R Morton; Albert J Fornace; Sally A Amundson Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Igor Shuryak; Shanaz A Ghandhi; Helen C Turner; Waylon Weber; Dunstana Melo; Sally A Amundson; David J Brenner Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Terri L Ryan; Antonio G Pantelias; Georgia I Terzoudi; Gabriel E Pantelias; Adayabalam S Balajee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 3.240