4.6 Article

Gene Expression-Based Dosimetry by Dose and Time in Mice Following Acute Radiation Exposure

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 8, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083390

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services [HHSO100201000004C]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rapid and reliable methods for performing biological dosimetry are of paramount importance in the event of a large-scale nuclear event. Traditional dosimetry approaches lack the requisite rapid assessment capability, ease of use, portability and low cost, which are factors needed for triaging a large number of victims. Here we describe the results of experiments in which mice were acutely exposed to Co-60 gamma rays at doses of 0 (control) to 10 Gy. Blood was obtained from irradiated mice 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 days after exposure. mRNA expression levels of 106 selected genes were obtained by reverse-transcription real time PCR. Stepwise regression of dose received against individual gene transcript expression levels provided optimal dosimetry at each time point. The results indicate that only 4-7 different gene transcripts are needed to explain >= 0.69 of the variance (R-2), and that receiver-operator characteristics, a measure of sensitivity and specificity, of >= 0.93 for these statistical models were achieved at each time point. These models provide an excellent description of the relationship between the actual and predicted doses up to 6 Gy. At doses of 8 and 10 Gy there appears to be saturation of the radiation-response signals with a corresponding diminution of accuracy. These results suggest that similar analyses in humans may be advantageous for use in a field-portable device designed to assess exposures in mass casualty situations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available