4.5 Article

Lack of evidence for low-LET radiation induced bystander response in normal human fibroblasts and colon carcinoma cells

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION BIOLOGY
卷 86, 期 2, 页码 102-113

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09553000903419957

关键词

bystander effects; human cells; ionising radiation; low-LET

资金

  1. Biological and Environmental Research Program (BER)
  2. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC06-76RLO, DE-FG02-05ER64082]
  3. NASA [NNJ06HD31G, NNX07AT42G]
  4. NIH-National Cancer Institute [CA92262-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To investigate radiation-induced bystander responses and to determine the role of gap junction intercellular communication and the radiation environment in propagating this response. Materials and methods: We used medium transfer and targeted irradiation to examine radiation-induced bystander effects in primary human fibroblast (AG01522) and human colon carcinoma (RKO36) cells. We examined the effect of variables such as gap junction intercellular communication, linear energy transfer (LET), and the role of the radiation environment in non-targeted responses. Endpoints included clonogenic survival, micronucleus formation and foci formation at histone 2AX over doses ranging from 10-100 cGy. Results: The results showed no evidence of a low-LET radiation-induced bystander response for the endpoints of clonogenic survival and induction of DNA damage. Nor did we see evidence of a high-LET, Fe ion radiation (1 GeV/n) induced bystander effect. However, direct comparison for 3.2 McV alpha-particle exposures showed a statistically significant medium transfer bystander effect for this high-LET radiation. Conclusions: From our results, it is evident that there are many confounding factors influencing bystander responses as reported in the literature. Our observations reflect the inherent variability in biological systems and the difficulties in extrapolating from in vitro models to radiation risks in humans.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据