Literature DB >> 9729276

Kinetics of the formation of chromosome aberrations in X-irradiated human lymphocytes, using PCC and FISH.

F Darroudi1, J Fomina, M Meijers, A T Natarajan.   

Abstract

In order to study the initial frequencies and define kinetics of the formation of chromosomal exchanges in X-irradiated human lymphocytes, the premature chromosome condensation (PCC) technique was employed in combination with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) with a composite probe for human chromosome 8 and a pan-centromeric probe for the whole genome. Human lymphocytes were X-irradiated (0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 Gy), fused with mitotic Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells immediately or 1, 3, 6, 12 and 18 h after irradiation. Immediately after irradiation chromosomal breaks, dicentrics and translocations showed a linear dose-response. Unrejoined chromosome breaks were the most frequent types of aberrations (about 85%) observed. About 15% of total aberrations were chromosome exchanges of 65% of these were translocations and 35% were dicentrics. The chromosomal exchanges initially observed were mostly incomplete, with no complex exchanges at doses of 1 and 2 Gy, at higher doses (3-6 Gy) complex exchanges were observed and their frequencies increased with increasing post incubation time. Following different recovery times, repair kinetics of breaks for different doses of irradiation was studied. The shapes of the curves obtained for breaks as well as chromosome exchanges were linear-quadratic. The linear yield component, alpha, is formed entirely in the fast process that can be manifested in the early plateau, while component beta developed slowly in the subsequent hours. The kinetics of breaks rejoining was exponential, almost 50% of breaks rejoined after 1 h and at 18 h about 20% of breaks remained. At low doses of 1 and 2 Gy most of the exchanges were formed immediately and at higher doses, the frequency of exchanges increased with kinetics similar to that observed for the rejoining of breaks. However, the kinetics was different for different doses of irradiation. The frequency of dicentrics increased at doses above 2 Gy following 3 h recovery time, but for the translocations effect was pronounced even at 1 h recovery time. The frequency of incomplete exchanges (i.e., terminal translocations) decreased with post irradiation time and at 18 h was 30-40% less than the frequency obtained immediately after irradiation. The increase in the total translocations as a function of time between irradiation and fusion was due to a rapid increase in complete exchanges (i.e., reciprocal translocations). The frequency of ring chromosomes immediately after irradiation, also increased linearly, however, it was 3-5 times lower than dicentrics and remained almost constant in number for different doses and at different post-irradiation times. Copyright 1998 Elsevier Science B. V.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9729276     DOI: 10.1016/s0027-5107(98)00095-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutat Res        ISSN: 0027-5107            Impact factor:   2.433


  10 in total

1.  Dose assessment intercomparisons within the RENEB network using G0-lymphocyte prematurely condensed chromosomes (PCC assay).

Authors:  Georgia I Terzoudi; Gabriel Pantelias; Firouz Darroudi; Katarzyna Barszczewska; Iwona Buraczewska; Julie Depuydt; Dimka Georgieva; Valeria Hadjidekova; Vasiliki I Hatzi; Ioanna Karachristou; Maria Karakosta; Roberta Meschini; Radhia M'Kacher; Alegria Montoro; Fabrizio Palitti; Antonio Pantelias; Gaetano Pepe; Michelle Ricoul; Laure Sabatier; Natividad Sebastià; Sylwester Sommer; Anne Vral; Demetre Zafiropoulos; Andrzej Wojcik
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 2.694

2.  Assessment of biodosimetry methods for a mass-casualty radiological incident: medical response and management considerations.

Authors:  Julie M Sullivan; Pataje G S Prasanna; Marcy B Grace; Lynne K Wathen; Rodney L Wallace; John F Koerner; C Norman Coleman
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 1.316

Review 3.  Human Radiosensitivity and Radiosusceptibility: What Are the Differences?

Authors:  Laura El-Nachef; Joelle Al-Choboq; Juliette Restier-Verlet; Adeline Granzotto; Elise Berthel; Laurène Sonzogni; Mélanie L Ferlazzo; Audrey Bouchet; Pierre Leblond; Patrick Combemale; Stéphane Pinson; Michel Bourguignon; Nicolas Foray
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 5.923

4.  mFISH analysis of chromosomal damage in bone marrow cells collected from CBA/CaJ mice following whole body exposure to heavy ions (56Fe ions).

Authors:  K Noy Rithidech; L Honikel; E B Whorton
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 2.017

5.  Polo-like kinase 3 regulates CtIP during DNA double-strand break repair in G1.

Authors:  Olivia Barton; Steffen C Naumann; Ronja Diemer-Biehs; Julia Künzel; Monika Steinlage; Sandro Conrad; Nodar Makharashvili; Jiadong Wang; Lin Feng; Bernard S Lopez; Tanya T Paull; Junjie Chen; Penny A Jeggo; Markus Löbrich
Journal:  J Cell Biol       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 10.539

6.  Construction of Calibration Curve for Premature Chromosome Condensation Assay for Dose Assessment.

Authors:  Elizaveta G Neronova
Journal:  Genome Integr       Date:  2016-12-30

7.  Differential radio-sensitivities of human chromosomes 1 and 2 in one donor in interphase- and metaphase-spreads after 60Co gamma-irradiation.

Authors:  Rupak Pathak; Adarsh Ramakumar; Uma Subramanian; Pataje G S Prasanna
Journal:  BMC Med Phys       Date:  2009-06-16

Review 8.  Utilization of cytogenetic biomarkers as a tool for assessment of radiation injury and evaluation of radiomodulatory effects of various medicinal plants - a review.

Authors:  Ravindra M Samarth; Meenakshi Samarth; Yoshihisa Matsumoto
Journal:  Drug Des Devel Ther       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 4.162

9.  Chromosome Damage Caused by Accidental Chronic Whole-Body Gamma Radiation Exposure in Thailand.

Authors:  B A Ulsh; J Dolling; J Lavoie; R E J Mitchel; D R Boreham
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 2.658

10.  γ-H2AX Foci Persistence at Chromosome Break Suggests Slow and Faithful Repair Phases Restoring Chromosome Integrity.

Authors:  Michelle Ricoul; Tamizh Selvan Gnana Sekaran; Patricia Brochard; Cecile Herate; Laure Sabatier
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2019-09-19       Impact factor: 6.639

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.