4.7 Article

Cross-platform validation of a mouse blood gene signature for quantitative reconstruction of radiation dose

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-18558-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID [U19A1067773]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that analyzing gene expression levels in mouse blood can accurately reflect radiation doses, which is more reliable than using a healthy human blood model. Using 30 radiation-responsive genes, accurate dose reconstructions can be made in mice of different sexes, which is crucial for studying the health effects of radiation exposure.
In the search for biological markers after a large-scale exposure of the human population to radiation, gene expression is a sensitive endpoint easily translatable to in-field high throughput applications. Primarily, the ex-vivo irradiated healthy human blood model has been used to generate available gene expression datasets. This model has limitations i.e., lack of signaling from other irradiated tissues and deterioration of blood cells cultures over time. In vivo models are needed; therefore, we present our novel approach to define a gene signature in mouse blood cells that quantitatively correlates with radiation dose (at 1 Gy/min). Starting with available microarray datasets, we selected 30 radiation-responsive genes and performed cross-validation/training-testing data splits to downselect 16 radiation-responsive genes. We then tested these genes in an independent cohort of irradiated adult C57BL/6 mice (50:50 both sexes) and measured mRNA by quantitative RT-PCR in whole blood at 24 h. Dose reconstruction using net signal (difference between geometric means of top 3 positively correlated and top 4 negatively correlated genes with dose), was highly improved over the microarrays, with a root mean square error of +/- 1.1 Gy in male and female mice combined. There were no significant sex-specific differences in mRNA or cell counts after irradiation.

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

4.7
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