Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021: The Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus Assay

A. Vral, D. Endesfelder, J. Balázs, C. Beinke, C. Cuceu Petrenci, F. Finot, G. Garty, L. Hadjiiska, R. Hristova, I. Ivanova, Y. Lee, K. Lumniczky, M. Milanova, O. Monteiro Gil, U. Oestreicher, J. Pajic, C. Patrono, ND. Pham, G. Perletti, KM....

. 2023 ; 199 (6) : 571-582. [pub] 2023Jun01

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc23011211

The goal of the RENEB inter-laboratory comparison 2021 exercise was to simulate a large-scale radiation accident involving a network of biodosimetry labs. Labs were required to perform their analyses using different biodosimetric assays in triage mode scoring and to rapidly report estimated radiation doses to the organizing institution. This article reports the results obtained with the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay. Three test samples were exposed to blinded doses of 0, 1.2 and 3.5 Gy X-ray doses (240 kVp, 13 mA, ∼75 keV, 1 Gy/min). These doses belong to 3 triage categories of clinical relevance: a low dose category, for no exposure or exposures inferior to 1 Gy, requiring no direct treatment of subjects; a medium dose category, with doses ranging from 1 to 2 Gy, and a high dose category, after exposure to doses higher than 2 Gy, with the two latter requiring increasing medical attention. After irradiation the test samples (no. 1, no. 2 and no. 3) were sent by the organizing laboratory to 14 centers participating in the micronucleus assay exercise. Laboratories were asked to setup micronucleus cultures and to perform the micronucleus assay in triage mode, scoring 500 binucleated cells manually, or 1,000 binucleated cells in automated/semi-automated mode. One laboratory received no blood samples, but scored pictures from another lab. Based on their calibration curves, laboratories had to provide estimates of the administered doses. The accuracy of the reported dose estimates was further analyzed by the micronucleus assay lead. The micronucleus assay allowed classification of samples in the corresponding clinical triage categories (low, medium, high dose category) in 88% of cases (manual scoring, 88%; semi-automated scoring, 100%; automated scoring, 73%). Agreement between scoring laboratories, assessed by calculating the Fleiss' kappa, was excellent (100%) for semi-automated scoring, good (83%) for manual scoring and poor (53%) for fully automated scoring. Correct classification into triage scoring dose intervals (reference dose ±0.5 Gy for doses ≤2.5 Gy, or reference dose ±1 Gy for doses >2.5 Gy), recommended for triage biodosimetry, was obtained in 79% of cases (manual scoring, 73%; semi-automated scoring, 100%; automated scoring, 67%). The percentage of dose estimates whose 95% confidence intervals included the reference dose was 58% (manual scoring, 48%; semiautomated scoring, 72%; automated scoring, 60%). For the irradiated samples no. 2 and no. 3, a systematic shift towards higher dose estimations was observed. This was also noticed with the other cytogenetic assays in this intercomparison exercise. Accuracy of the rapid triage modality could be maintained when the number of manually scored cells was scaled down to 200 binucleated cells. In conclusion, the micronucleus assay, preferably performed in a semi-automated or manual scoring mode, is a reliable technique to perform rapid biodosimetry analysis in large-scale radiation emergencies.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc23011211
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230801132859.0
007      
ta
008      
230718s2023 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1667/RADE-22-00201.1 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)37057983
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Vral, A $u Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Radiobiology Research Unit, Universiteit Gent, Gent, Belgium
245    10
$a RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021: The Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus Assay / $c A. Vral, D. Endesfelder, J. Balázs, C. Beinke, C. Cuceu Petrenci, F. Finot, G. Garty, L. Hadjiiska, R. Hristova, I. Ivanova, Y. Lee, K. Lumniczky, M. Milanova, O. Monteiro Gil, U. Oestreicher, J. Pajic, C. Patrono, ND. Pham, G. Perletti, KM. Seong, S. Sommer, T. Szatmári, A. Testa, A. Tichy, TM. Tran, R. Wilkins, M. Port, M. Abend, A. Baeyens
520    9_
$a The goal of the RENEB inter-laboratory comparison 2021 exercise was to simulate a large-scale radiation accident involving a network of biodosimetry labs. Labs were required to perform their analyses using different biodosimetric assays in triage mode scoring and to rapidly report estimated radiation doses to the organizing institution. This article reports the results obtained with the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay. Three test samples were exposed to blinded doses of 0, 1.2 and 3.5 Gy X-ray doses (240 kVp, 13 mA, ∼75 keV, 1 Gy/min). These doses belong to 3 triage categories of clinical relevance: a low dose category, for no exposure or exposures inferior to 1 Gy, requiring no direct treatment of subjects; a medium dose category, with doses ranging from 1 to 2 Gy, and a high dose category, after exposure to doses higher than 2 Gy, with the two latter requiring increasing medical attention. After irradiation the test samples (no. 1, no. 2 and no. 3) were sent by the organizing laboratory to 14 centers participating in the micronucleus assay exercise. Laboratories were asked to setup micronucleus cultures and to perform the micronucleus assay in triage mode, scoring 500 binucleated cells manually, or 1,000 binucleated cells in automated/semi-automated mode. One laboratory received no blood samples, but scored pictures from another lab. Based on their calibration curves, laboratories had to provide estimates of the administered doses. The accuracy of the reported dose estimates was further analyzed by the micronucleus assay lead. The micronucleus assay allowed classification of samples in the corresponding clinical triage categories (low, medium, high dose category) in 88% of cases (manual scoring, 88%; semi-automated scoring, 100%; automated scoring, 73%). Agreement between scoring laboratories, assessed by calculating the Fleiss' kappa, was excellent (100%) for semi-automated scoring, good (83%) for manual scoring and poor (53%) for fully automated scoring. Correct classification into triage scoring dose intervals (reference dose ±0.5 Gy for doses ≤2.5 Gy, or reference dose ±1 Gy for doses >2.5 Gy), recommended for triage biodosimetry, was obtained in 79% of cases (manual scoring, 73%; semi-automated scoring, 100%; automated scoring, 67%). The percentage of dose estimates whose 95% confidence intervals included the reference dose was 58% (manual scoring, 48%; semiautomated scoring, 72%; automated scoring, 60%). For the irradiated samples no. 2 and no. 3, a systematic shift towards higher dose estimations was observed. This was also noticed with the other cytogenetic assays in this intercomparison exercise. Accuracy of the rapid triage modality could be maintained when the number of manually scored cells was scaled down to 200 binucleated cells. In conclusion, the micronucleus assay, preferably performed in a semi-automated or manual scoring mode, is a reliable technique to perform rapid biodosimetry analysis in large-scale radiation emergencies.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a vztah dávky záření a odpovědi $7 D004307
650    12
$a cytokineze $x účinky záření $7 D048749
650    _2
$a mikrojaderné testy $x metody $7 D015162
650    12
$a únik radioaktivních látek $7 D018788
650    _2
$a biotest $x metody $7 D001681
650    _2
$a radiometrie $x metody $7 D011874
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Endesfelder, D $u Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, BfS, Oberschleissheim, Germany
700    1_
$a Balázs, J $u National Public Health Center, Department of Radiobiology and Radiohygiene, Unit of Radiation Medicine, Budapest, Hungary
700    1_
$a Beinke, C $u Bundeswehr Institute of Radiobiology, Munich, Germany
700    1_
$a Cuceu Petrenci, C $u Genevolution, Porcheville, France
700    1_
$a Finot, F $u Genevolution, Porcheville, France
700    1_
$a Garty, G $u Center for Radiological Research, Columbia University, New York, New York
700    1_
$a Hadjiiska, L $u National Centre of Radiobiology and Radiation Protection, Sofia, Bulgaria
700    1_
$a Hristova, R $u National Centre of Radiobiology and Radiation Protection, Sofia, Bulgaria
700    1_
$a Ivanova, I $u National Centre of Radiobiology and Radiation Protection, Sofia, Bulgaria
700    1_
$a Lee, Y $u Laboratory of Biological Dosimetry, National Radiation Emergency Medical Center, Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences, Seoul, Republic of Korea
700    1_
$a Lumniczky, K $u National Public Health Center, Department of Radiobiology and Radiohygiene, Unit of Radiation Medicine, Budapest, Hungary
700    1_
$a Milanova, M $u Department of Radiobiology, Faculty of Military Health Sciences, University of Defence, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Monteiro Gil, O $u Centro de Ciências e Tecnologias Nucleares, Instituto Superior Técnico (IST), Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
700    1_
$a Oestreicher, U $u Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, BfS, Oberschleissheim, Germany
700    1_
$a Pajic, J $u Serbian Institute of Occupational Health, Belgrade, Serbia
700    1_
$a Patrono, C $u Agenzia nazionale per le nuove tecnologie, l'energia e lo sviluppo economico sostenibile, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Pham, N D $u Center Radiation technlogy & Biotechnology; Dalat Nuclear Research Institute; Dalat City, Vietnam
700    1_
$a Perletti, G $u Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Radiobiology Research Unit, Universiteit Gent, Gent, Belgium
700    1_
$a Seong, K M $u Laboratory of Biological Dosimetry, National Radiation Emergency Medical Center, Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences, Seoul, Republic of Korea
700    1_
$a Sommer, S $u Institute of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology, Warsaw, Poland
700    1_
$a Szatmári, T $u National Public Health Center, Department of Radiobiology and Radiohygiene, Unit of Radiation Medicine, Budapest, Hungary
700    1_
$a Testa, A $u Agenzia nazionale per le nuove tecnologie, l'energia e lo sviluppo economico sostenibile, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Tichy, A $u Department of Radiobiology, Faculty of Military Health Sciences, University of Defence, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Tran, T M $u Center Radiation technlogy & Biotechnology; Dalat Nuclear Research Institute; Dalat City, Vietnam
700    1_
$a Wilkins, R $u Health Canada, Radiation Protection Building, Ottawa, Canada
700    1_
$a Port, M $u Bundeswehr Institute of Radiobiology, Munich, Germany
700    1_
$a Abend, M $u Bundeswehr Institute of Radiobiology, Munich, Germany
700    1_
$a Baeyens, A $u Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Radiobiology Research Unit, Universiteit Gent, Gent, Belgium
773    0_
$w MED00010511 $t Radiation research $x 1938-5404 $g Roč. 199, č. 6 (2023), s. 571-582
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37057983 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20230718 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230801132855 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1963543 $s 1197476
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 199 $c 6 $d 571-582 $e 2023Jun01 $i 1938-5404 $m Radiation research $n Radiat Res $x MED00010511
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20230718

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace