4.5 Review

Retrospective biodosimetry techniques: Focus on cytogenetics assays for individuals exposed to ionizing radiation

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.108287

Keywords

Biodosimetry; Cytogenetics; Dicentric chromosomes; FISH; Micronuclei

Funding

  1. European Joint Program Concert [662287]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the absence of physical data, biodosimetry tools are required for fast dose and risk assessment in the event of radiological or nuclear mass accidents or attacks to triage exposed humans and take immediate medical countermeasures. Biodosimetry tools have mostly been developed for retrospective dose assessment and the follow-up of victims of irradiation. Among them, cytogenetics analyses, to reveal chromosome damage, are the most developed and allow the determination of doses from blood samples as low as 100 mGy. Various cytogenetic tests have already allowed retrospective dose assessment of Chernobyl liquidators and military personnel exposed to nuclear tests after decades. In this review, we discuss the properties of various biodosimetry techniques, such as their sensitivity and limitations as a function of the time from exposure, using multiple examples of nuclear catastrophes or working exposure. Among them, chromosome FISH hybridization, which reveals chromosome translocations, is the most reliable due to the persistence of translocations for decades, whereas dicentric chromosome and micronuclei assays allow rapid and accurate dose assessment a short time after exposure. Both need to be adjusted through mathematical algorithms for retrospective analyses, accounting for the time since exposure and the victims' age. The goal for the future will be to better model chromosome damage, reduce the time to result, and develop new complementary biodosimetry approaches, such as mutation signatures. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available