Most cited article - PubMed ID 37018160
RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021: The Dicentric Chromosome Assay
The dicentric chromosome assay is a well-established biodosimetric method used to assess absorbed ionizing radiation doses by detecting dicentric chromosomal aberrations. Here, we present a detailed, reproducible protocol for applying the dicentric chromosome assay for in vitro evaluation of radioprotective agents, including novel piperazine derivatives compared with amifostine and its active metabolite WR-1065. The protocol covers all key steps-blood sample preparation, in vitro irradiation, lymphocyte culture, metaphase preparation, and scoring of dicentric chromosomes. It highlights critical stages that affect data quality and reproducibility. Integrating manual scoring with automated analysis using the Metafer system ensures accurate and efficient assessment. Thus, this protocol bridges the fields of biological dosimetry and preclinical screening of radioprotective agents, providing a reliable framework for emergency radiation dose estimation and the development of new radiation medical countermeasures.
- Keywords
- amifostine, chromosome aberrations, cytogenetics, ionizing radiation, radioprotective agent,
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Review MeSH
In previous RENEB interlaboratory comparisons based on the manual scoring of dicentric chromosomes, a tendency for systematic overestimation for doses > 2.5 Gy was found. However, these exercises included only very few doses in the high dose range, and they were heterogeneous in terms of radiation quality and evaluation mode, and comparable only to a limited extent. Here, this presumed deviation was explored by investigating three doses > 2.5 Gy. Blood samples were irradiated (2.56, 3.41 and 4.54 Gy) using a 60Co source and sent to 14 member laboratories of the RENEB network, which performed the dicentric chromosome assay (manual and/or semi-automatic scoring) and reported dose estimates. Most participants provided estimates that agreed very well with the physical reference doses and all provided dose estimates were in the correct clinical category (> 2 Gy). The previously observed tendency for a systematic bias across all laboratories was not confirmed. However, tendencies for systematic underestimation were detected for dose estimations for reference doses given in terms of absorbed dose to blood and for some participants, a laboratory-specific trend of systematic under- or overestimation was observed. The importance of regularly performed quality checks for a broad dose range became obvious to avoid misinterpretation of results.
- Keywords
- Biological dosimetry, Dicentric chromosome, Interlaboratory comparison, Ionising radiation, Network, Radiation accident,
- MeSH
- Chromosome Aberrations * radiation effects MeSH
- Radiation Dosage MeSH
- Laboratories MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Cobalt Radioisotopes * MeSH
- Radiometry * methods MeSH
- Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Cobalt-60 MeSH Browser
- Cobalt Radioisotopes * 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.
