4.3 Article

Gene Expression Profiles in Radiation Workers Occupationally Exposed to Ionizing Radiation

Journal

JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH
Volume 50, Issue 1, Pages 61-71

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1269/jrr.08034

Keywords

Low radiation doses; Ionizing radiation; Radiation workers; Occupational exposure; Gene expression profiles

Funding

  1. FAPESP (Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo) [99/12135-9, 01/10995-2, 02/07314-6]
  2. CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ionizing radiation OR) imposes risks to human health and the environment. IR at low doses and low (lose rates has the potency to initiate carcinogenesis. Genotoxic environmental agents such as IR trigger a cascade of signal transduction pathways for cellular protection. In this study, using cDNA microarray technique, we monitored the gene expression profiles in lymphocytes derived from radiation-ex posed individuals (radiation workers). Physical dosimetry records on these patients indicated that the absorbed dose ranged from 0.696 to 39.088 mSv. Gene expression analysis revealed statistically significant transcriptional changes in a total of 78 genes (21 up-regulated and 57 clown-regulated) involved in several biological processes such as ubiquitin cycle (UHRF2 and PIAS1), DNA repair (LIG3, XPA, ERCC5, RAD52, DCLRE1C), cell cycle regulation/proliferation (RHOA, CABLES2, TGFB2, IL16), and stress response (GSTP1, PPP2R5A, DUSP22). Some of the genes that showed altered expression profiles in this study call be used as biomarkers for monitoring the chronic low level exposure in humans. Additionally, alterations in gene expression patterns observed in chronically exposed radiation workers reinforces the need for defining the effective radiation dose that causes immediate genetic damage as well as the long-term effects on genomic instability, including cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available