4.8 Article

Inducible response required for repair of low-dose radiation damage in human fibroblasts

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1002213107

关键词

double-strand break repair; low radiation doses; inducible response

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [677/4-1/2]
  2. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung via Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe [02S8335, 02S8355]
  3. Forschungszentrum Julich [03NUK001C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ionizing radiation (IR) induces a variety of DNA lesions among which DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are the biologically most significant. It is currently unclear if DSB repair is equally efficient after low and high doses. Here, we use gamma-H2AX, phospho-ATM (pATM), and 53BP1 foci analysis to monitor DSB repair. We show, consistent with a previous study, that the kinetics of gamma-H2AX and pATM foci loss in confluent primary human fibroblasts are substantially compromised after doses of 10 mGy and lower. Following 2.5 mGy, cells fail to show any foci loss. Strikingly, cells pretreated with 10 mu M H2O2 efficiently remove all gamma-H2AX foci induced by 10 mGy. At the concentration used, H2O2 produces single-strand breaks and base damages via the generation of oxygen radicals but no DSBs. Moreover, 10 mu M H2O2 up-regulates a set of genes that is also up-regulated after high (200 mGy) but not after low (10 mGy) radiation doses. This suggests that low radical levels induce a response that is required for the repair of radiation-induced DSBs when the radiation damage is too low to cause the induction itself. To address the in vivo significance of this finding, we established gamma-H2AX and 53BP1 foci analysis in various mouse tissues. Although mice irradiated with 100 mGy or 1 Gy show efficient gamma-H2AX and 53BP1 foci removal during 24 h post-IR, barely any foci loss was observed after 10 mGy. Our data suggest that the cellular response to DSBs is substantially different for low vs. high radiation doses.

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

4.8
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