Influence of cellular models and individual factor in the biological response to head CT scan exams.
DNA breaks (double-stranded)
Li-Fraumeni syndrome
Neurofibromatosis 1
Radiobiology
Tomography (x-ray computed)
Journal
European radiology experimental
ISSN: 2509-9280
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol Exp
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721752
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 04 2022
07 04 2022
Historique:
received:
05
09
2021
accepted:
08
03
2022
entrez:
7
4
2022
pubmed:
8
4
2022
medline:
9
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
While computed tomography (CT) exams are the major cause of medical exposure to ionising radiation, the radiation-induced risks must be documented. We investigated the impact of the cellular models and individual factor on the deoxyribonucleic acid double-strand breaks (DSB) recognition and repair in human skin fibroblasts and brain astrocytes exposed to current head CT scan conditions. Nine human primary fibroblasts and four human astrocyte cell lines with different levels of radiosensitivity/susceptibility were exposed to a standard head CT scan exam using adapted phantoms. Cells were exposed to a single-helical (37.4 mGy) and double-helical (37.4 mGy + 5 min + 37.4 mGy) examination. DSB signalling and repair was assessed through anti-γH2AX and anti-pATM immunofluorescence. Head CT scan induced a significant number of γH2AX and pATM foci. The kinetics of both biomarkers were found strongly dependent on the individual factor. Particularly, in cells from radiosensitive/susceptible patients, DSB may be significantly less recognised and/or repaired, whatever the CT scan exposure conditions. Similar conclusions were reached with astrocytes. Our results highlight the importance of both individual and tissue factors in the recognition and repair of DSB after current head CT scan exams. Further investigations are needed to better define the radiosensitivity/susceptibility of individual humans.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
While computed tomography (CT) exams are the major cause of medical exposure to ionising radiation, the radiation-induced risks must be documented. We investigated the impact of the cellular models and individual factor on the deoxyribonucleic acid double-strand breaks (DSB) recognition and repair in human skin fibroblasts and brain astrocytes exposed to current head CT scan conditions.
METHOD
Nine human primary fibroblasts and four human astrocyte cell lines with different levels of radiosensitivity/susceptibility were exposed to a standard head CT scan exam using adapted phantoms. Cells were exposed to a single-helical (37.4 mGy) and double-helical (37.4 mGy + 5 min + 37.4 mGy) examination. DSB signalling and repair was assessed through anti-γH2AX and anti-pATM immunofluorescence.
RESULTS
Head CT scan induced a significant number of γH2AX and pATM foci. The kinetics of both biomarkers were found strongly dependent on the individual factor. Particularly, in cells from radiosensitive/susceptible patients, DSB may be significantly less recognised and/or repaired, whatever the CT scan exposure conditions. Similar conclusions were reached with astrocytes.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results highlight the importance of both individual and tissue factors in the recognition and repair of DSB after current head CT scan exams. Further investigations are needed to better define the radiosensitivity/susceptibility of individual humans.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35385987
doi: 10.1186/s41747-022-00269-x
pii: 10.1186/s41747-022-00269-x
pmc: PMC8986906
doi:
Substances chimiques
Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated Proteins
EC 2.7.11.1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
17Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.
Références
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) (2009) Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. NCRP report No. 160, Bethesda, MD, USA. https://ncrponline.org/publications/reports/ncrp-report-160-2/
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) (2019) Medical radiation exposure of patients in the united states. NCRP Report No. 184, Bethesda, MD, USA. https://ncrponline.org/shop/reports/report-no-184-medical-radiation-exposure-of-patients-in-the-united-states-2019/
Mettler FA, Mahesh M, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, et al (2020) Patient exposure from radiologic and nuclear medicine procedures in the United States: procedure volume and effective dose for the period 2006–2016. Radiology 295:418–427. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020192256
Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, et al (2013) Cancer risk in 680 000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ 346:f2360. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2360
doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2360
pubmed: 23694687
pmcid: 3660619
Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, et al (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380:499–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60815-0
Bouëtté A, Karoussou-Schreiner A, Ducou Le Pointe H, et al (2019) National audit on the appropriateness of CT and MRI examinations in Luxembourg. Insights Imaging 10:54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0731-9
Autorité de sûreté nucléaire (ASN) (2019) Décision n° 2019-DC-0660 de l’Autorité de sûreté nucléaire du 15 janvier 2019 fixant les obligations d’assurance de la qualité en imagerie médicale mettant en œuvre des rayonnements ionisants. ASN, Paris https://www.asn.fr/l-asn-reglemente/bulletin-officiel-de-l-asn/activites-medicales/decisions-reglementaires/decision-n-2019-dc-0660-de-l-asn-du-15-janvier-2019
Rothkamm K, Lobrich M (2003) Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in human cells exposed to very low x-ray doses. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:5057–5062. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0830918100
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0830918100
pubmed: 12679524
pmcid: 154297
Lobrich M, Rief N, Kuhne M et al (2005) In vivo formation and repair of DNA double-strand breaks after computed tomography examinations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:8984–8989. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0501895102
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0501895102
pubmed: 15956203
pmcid: 1150277
Shi L, Tashiro S (2018) Estimation of the effects of medical diagnostic radiation exposure based on DNA damage. J Radiat Res 59:ii121–ii129. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rry006
Huang W-Y, Muo C-H, Lin C-Y, et al (2014) Paediatric head CT scan and subsequent risk of malignancy and benign brain tumour: a nation-wide population-based cohort study. Br J Cancer 110:2354–2360. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2014.103
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.103
pubmed: 24569470
pmcid: 4007220
de Gonzalez AB, Salotti JA, McHugh K, et al (2016) Relationship between paediatric CT scans and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: assessment of the impact of underlying conditions. Br J Cancer 114:388–394. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.415
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.415
pmcid: 4815765
Bourguignon M, Bérard P, Bertho JM, Farah J, Mercat C, Radioprotection Editorial Board (2017) What’s next in Radioprotection? Radioprotection 52:21–28. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2017006
doi: 10.1051/radiopro/2017006
Foray N, Colin C, Bourguignon M (2012) 100 Years of Individual Radiosensitivity: How We Have Forgotten the Evidence. Radiology 264:627–631. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112560
doi: 10.1148/radiol.12112560
pubmed: 22919036
Foray N, Bourguignon M, Hamada N (2016) Individual response to ionizing radiation. Mutat Res Mutat Res 770:369–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2016.09.001
doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2016.09.001
Granzotto A, Benadjaoud MA, Vogin G, et al (2016) Influence of Nucleoshuttling of the ATM Protein in the Healthy Tissues Response to Radiation Therapy: Toward a Molecular Classification of Human Radiosensitivity. Int J Radiat Oncol 94:450–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.11.013
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.11.013
Berthel E, Foray N, Ferlazzo ML (2019) The nucleoshuttling of the ATM protein: a unified model to describe the individual response to high- and low-dose of radiation? Cancers 11:905. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11070905
Bodgi L, Foray N (2016) The nucleo-shuttling of the ATM protein as a basis for a novel theory of radiation response: resolution of the linear-quadratic model*. Int J Radiat Biol 92:117–131. https://doi.org/10.3109/09553002.2016.1135260
doi: 10.3109/09553002.2016.1135260
pubmed: 26907628
Bakkenist CJ, Kastan MB (2003) DNA damage activates ATM through intermolecular autophosphorylation and dimer dissociation. Nature 421 :499–506. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01368
Burma S, Chen BP, Murphy M, Kurimasa A, Chen DJ (2001) ATM phosphorylates histone H2AX in response to DNA double-strand breaks. J Biol Chem 276:42462–42467. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.C100466200
doi: 10.1074/jbc.C100466200
pubmed: 11571274
Rogakou EP, Pilch DR, Orr AH, Ivanova VS, Bonner WM (1998) DNA double-stranded breaks induce histone H2AX phosphorylation on Serine 139. J Biol Chem 273:5858–5868. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.273.10.5858
doi: 10.1074/jbc.273.10.5858
pubmed: 9488723
Maalouf M, Granzotto A, Devic C, et al (2019) Influence of linear energy transfer on the nucleo-shuttling of the ATM protein: a novel biological interpretation relevant for particles and radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol 103:709–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.10.011
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.10.011
Gillet P, Munier M, Arbor N, Carbillet F, el Bitar Z (2018) Evaluation of an optical scintillating fiber detector for CT dosimetry. Radiat Meas 119:125–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2018.09.012
doi: 10.1016/j.radmeas.2018.09.012
Munier M, Sohier T, Jung J, et al (2011) Method for determining the irradiation dose deposited in a scintillator by ionising radiation and associated device. Patent No US9244178B2
Munier M, Carbillet F, Torche F, Sohier T (2016) Device for determining a deposited dose and associated method Patent No WO/2017/081324
Foray N (2003) A subset of ATM- and ATR-dependent phosphorylation events requires the BRCA1 protein. EMBO J 22:2860–2871. https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/cdg274
doi: 10.1093/emboj/cdg274
pubmed: 12773400
pmcid: 156770
Joubert A, Zimmerman KM, Bencokova Z, Gastaldo J, Chavaudra N, Favaudon V, Arlett CF, Foray N (2008) DNA double-strand break repair defects in syndromes associated with acute radiation response: At least two different assays to predict intrinsic radiosensitivity? Int J Radiat Biol 84:107–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553000701797039
doi: 10.1080/09553000701797039
pubmed: 18246480
Ferlazzo M, Berthel E, Granzotto A, et al (2020) Some mutations in the xeroderma pigmentosum D gene may lead to moderate but significant radiosensitivity associated with a delayed radiation-induced ATM nuclear localization. Int J Radiat Biol 96:394–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2020.1694189
doi: 10.1080/09553002.2020.1694189
pubmed: 31738647
Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat 18:50–60. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730491
doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177730491
Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biom Bull 1:80. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001968
Kruskal WH, Wallis WA (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47:583–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441
doi: 10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441
Thariat J, Chevalier F, Orbach D, et al (2021) Avoidance or adaptation of radiotherapy in patients with cancer with Li-Fraumeni and heritable TP53-related cancer syndromes. Lancet Oncol 22:e562–e574. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00425-3
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00425-3
pubmed: 34856153
Combemale P, Sonzogni L, Devic C, et al (2021) Individual response to radiation of individuals with neurofibromatosis type I: role of the ATM protein and influence of statins and bisphosphonates. Mol Neurobiol 59:556–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12035-021-02615-3
doi: 10.1007/s12035-021-02615-3
pubmed: 34727321
Marples B, Joiner MC (1993) The response of Chinese hamster V79 cells to low radiation doses: evidence of enhanced sensitivity of the whole cell population. Radiat Res 133:41–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/3578255
doi: 10.2307/3578255
pubmed: 8434112
Colin C, Granzotto A, Devic C, et al (2011) MRE11 and H2AX biomarkers in the response to low-dose exposure: balance between individual susceptibility to radiosensitivity and to genomic instability. Int J Low Radiat 8:96. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLR.2011.044191
Thomas C, Martin J, Devic C, et al (2013) Impact of dose-rate on the low-dose hyper-radiosensitivity and induced radioresistance (HRS/IRR) response. Int J Radiat Biol 89:813–822. https://doi.org/10.3109/09553002.2013.800248
doi: 10.3109/09553002.2013.800248
pubmed: 23631649
Granzotto A, Bencokova Z, Vogin G et al (2011) In: Abujamra AL (ed) Brain Tumors - Current and Emerging Therapeutic Strategies. InTechDNA double-strand breaks repair and signaling of human gliomas and normal brain cells in response to radiation: potential impact of the ATM-and BRCA1-dependent pathways. https://doi.org/10.5772/19475
doi: 10.5772/19475
Damilakis J (2021) CT dosimetry: what has been achieved and what remains to be done. Invest Radiol 56:62–68. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000727
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000727
pubmed: 32932380