4.6 Article

Relative biological effectiveness for photons: implication of complex DNA double-strand breaks as critical lesions

Journal

PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
Volume 62, Issue 6, Pages 2153-2175

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa56ed

Keywords

Monte Carlo simulation; radiation biology; DNA double-strand breaks; relative biological effectiveness; complex DNA damage

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11434001, 91430217]
  2. National Grand Instrument Program of China [2012YQ030142]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Current knowledge in radiobiology ascribes the adverse biological effects of ionizing radiation primarily to the induction of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), which is supposed to be potentially lethal and may be converted to lethal damage due to misrepair. Soft and ultrasoft x-rays have been found to bear elevated biological effectiveness for cell killing compared with conventional x-rays or Co-60 gamma-rays. This phenomenon is qualitatively interpreted as the increased level of DSB induction for low energy photons, however, a thorough quantitative reasoning is lacking. Here, we systematically compared the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) with relative DSB induction for photons from several hundreds of eV up to MeV. Although there is an approximate two-fold increase in the yields of DSB for low energy photons found in our calculation and a large number of experimental measurements, it is far from enough to account for the three-to four-fold increase in RBE. Further theoretical investigations show that DSB complexity (additional single-strand breaks and base damage within 10 base pairs) increases notably for low energy photons, which largely reconciles the discrepancy between RBE and DSB induction. Our theoretical results are in line with accumulating experimental evidence that complex DSBs are refractory to repair machinery and may contribute predominantly to the formation of lethal damage.

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