Nejvíce citovaný článek - PubMed ID 33788952
Gene Expression Changes in Irradiated Baboons: A Summary and Interpretation of a Decade of Findings
As the great majority of gene expression (GE) biodosimetry studies have been performed using blood as the preferred source of tissue, searching for simple and less-invasive sampling methods is important when considering biodosimetry approaches. Knowing that whole saliva contains an ultrafiltrate of blood and white blood cells, it is expected that the findings in blood can also be found in saliva. This human in vivo study aims to examine radiation-induced GE changes in saliva for biodosimetry purposes and to predict radiation-induced disease, which is yet poorly characterized. Furthermore, we examined whether transcriptional biomarkers in blood can also be found equivalently in saliva. Saliva and blood samples were collected in parallel from radiotherapy (RT) treated patients who suffered from head and neck cancer (n = 8) undergoing fractioned partial-body irradiations (1.8 Gy/fraction and 50-70 Gy total dose). Samples were taken 12-24 h before first irradiation and ideally 24 and 48 h, as well as 5 weeks after radiotherapy onset. Due to the low quality and quantity of isolated RNA samples from one patient, they had to be excluded from further analysis, leaving a total of 24 saliva and 24 blood samples from 7 patients eligible for analysis. Using qRT-PCR, 18S rRNA and 16S rRNA (the ratio being a surrogate for the relative human RNA/bacterial burden), four housekeeping genes and nine mRNAs previously identified as radiation responsive in blood-based studies were detected. Significant GE associations with absorbed dose were found for five genes and after the 2nd radiotherapy fraction, shown by, e.g., the increase of CDKN1A (2.0 fold, P = 0.017) and FDXR (1.9 fold increased, P = 0.002). After the 25th radiotherapy fraction, however, all four genes (FDXR, DDB2, POU2AF1, WNT3) predicting ARS (acute radiation syndrome) severity, as well as further genes (including CCNG1 [median-fold change (FC) = 0.3, P = 0.013], and GADD45A (median-FC = 0.3, P = 0.031)) appeared significantly downregulated (FC = 0.3, P = 0.01-0.03). A significant association of CCNG1, POU2AF1, HPRT1, and WNT3 (P = 0.006-0.04) with acute or late radiotoxicity could be shown before the onset of these clinical outcomes. In an established set of four genes predicting acute health effects in blood, the response in saliva samples was similar to the expected up- (FDXR, DDB2) or downregulation (POU2AF1, WNT3) in blood for up to 71% of the measurements. Comparing GE responses (PHPT1, CCNG1, CDKN1A, GADD45A, SESN1) in saliva and blood samples, there was a significant linear association between saliva and blood response of CDKN1A (R2 = 0.60, P = 0.0004). However, the GE pattern of other genes differed between saliva and blood. In summary, the current human in vivo study, (I) reveals significant radiation-induced GE associations of five transcriptional biomarkers in salivary samples, (II) suggests genes predicting diverse clinical outcomes such as acute and late radiotoxicity as well as ARS severity, and (III) supports the view that blood-based GE response can be reflected in saliva samples, indicating that saliva is a "mirror of the body" for certain but not all genes and, thus, studies for each gene of interest in blood are required for saliva.
- MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nádory hlavy a krku radioterapie MeSH
- radiometrie MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- sliny * účinky záření metabolismus MeSH
- vztah dávky záření a odpovědi MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
Tools for radiation exposure reconstruction are required to support the medical management of radiation victims in radiological or nuclear incidents. Different biological and physical dosimetry assays can be used for various exposure scenarios to estimate the dose of ionizing radiation a person has absorbed. Regular validation of the techniques through inter-laboratory comparisons (ILC) is essential to guarantee high quality results. In the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison, the performance quality of established cytogenetic assays [dicentric chromosome assay (DCA), cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay (CBMN), stable chromosomal translocation assay (FISH) and premature chromosome condensation assay (PCC)] was tested in comparison to molecular biological assays [gamma-H2AX foci (gH2AX), gene expression (GE)] and physical dosimetry-based assays [electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR), optically or thermally stimulated luminescence (LUM)]. Three blinded coded samples (e.g., blood, enamel or mobiles) were exposed to 0, 1.2 or 3.5 Gy X-ray reference doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min). These doses roughly correspond to clinically relevant groups of unexposed to low exposed (0-1 Gy), moderately exposed (1-2 Gy, no severe acute health effects expected) and highly exposed individuals (>2 Gy, requiring early intensive medical care). In the frame of the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison, samples were sent to 86 specialized teams in 46 organizations from 27 nations for dose estimation and identification of three clinically relevant groups. The time for sending early crude reports and more precise reports was documented for each laboratory and assay where possible. The quality of dose estimates was analyzed with three different levels of granularity, 1. by calculating the frequency of correctly reported clinically relevant dose categories, 2. by determining the number of dose estimates within the uncertainty intervals recommended for triage dosimetry (±0.5 Gy or ±1.0 Gy for doses <2.5 Gy or >2.5 Gy), and 3. by calculating the absolute difference (AD) of estimated doses relative to the reference doses. In total, 554 dose estimates were submitted within the 6-week period given before the exercise was closed. For samples processed with the highest priority, earliest dose estimates/categories were reported within 5-10 h of receipt for GE, gH2AX, LUM, EPR, 2-3 days for DCA, CBMN and within 6-7 days for the FISH assay. For the unirradiated control sample, the categorization in the correct clinically relevant group (0-1 Gy) as well as the allocation to the triage uncertainty interval was, with the exception of a few outliers, successfully performed for all assays. For the 3.5 Gy sample the percentage of correct classifications to the clinically relevant group (≥2 Gy) was between 89-100% for all assays, with the exception of gH2AX. For the 1.2 Gy sample, an exact allocation to the clinically relevant group was more difficult and 0-50% or 0-48% of the estimates were wrongly classified into the lowest or highest dose categories, respectively. For the irradiated samples, the correct allocation to the triage uncertainty intervals varied considerably between assays for the 1.2 Gy (29-76%) and 3.5 Gy (17-100%) samples. While a systematic shift towards higher doses was observed for the cytogenetic-based assays, extreme outliers exceeding the reference doses 2-6 fold were observed for EPR, FISH and GE assays. These outliers were related to a particular material examined (tooth enamel for EPR assay, reported as kerma in enamel, but when converted into the proper quantity, i.e. to kerma in air, expected dose estimates could be recalculated in most cases), the level of experience of the teams (FISH) and methodological uncertainties (GE). This was the first RENEB ILC where everything, from blood sampling to irradiation and shipment of the samples, was organized and realized at the same institution, for several biological and physical retrospective dosimetry assays. Almost all assays appeared comparably applicable for the identification of unexposed and highly exposed individuals and the allocation of medical relevant groups, with the latter requiring medical support for the acute radiation scenario simulated in this exercise. However, extreme outliers or a systematic shift of dose estimates have been observed for some assays. Possible reasons will be discussed in the assay specific papers of this special issue. In summary, this ILC clearly demonstrates the need to conduct regular exercises to identify research needs, but also to identify technical problems and to optimize the design of future ILCs.
