4.6 Article

Long-Term Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Gene Expression in a Zebrafish Model

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069445

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Department of Energy [DE-SC0002343]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding how initial radiation injury translates into long-term effects is an important problem in radiation biology. Here, we define a set of changes in the transcription profile that are associated with the long-term response to radiation exposure. The study was performed in vivo using zebrafish, an established radiobiological model organism. To study the long-term response, 24 hour post-fertilization embryos were exposed to 0.1 Gy (low dose) or 1.0 Gy (moderate dose) of whole-body gamma radiation and allowed to develop for 16 weeks. Liver mRNA profiles were then analyzed using the Affymetrix microarray platform, with validation by quantitative PCR. As a basis for comparison, 16-week old adults were exposed at the same doses and analyzed after 4 hours. Statistical analysis was performed in a way to minimize the effects of multiple comparisons. The responses to these two treatment regimes differed greatly: 360 probe sets were associated primarily with the long-term response, whereas a different 2062 probe sets were associated primarily with the response when adults of the same age were irradiated 4 hours before exposure. Surprisingly, a ten-fold difference in radiation dose (0.1 versus 1.0 Gy) had little effect. Analysis at the gene and pathway level indicated that the long-term response includes the induction of cytokine and inflammatory regulators and transcription and growth factors. The acute response includes the induction of p53 target genes and modulation of the hypoxia-induced transcription factor-C/EBP axis. Results help define genes and pathways affected in the long-term, low and moderate dose radiation response and differentiate them from those affected in an acute response in the same tissue.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据