4.7 Review

Radioprotection and Radiomitigation: From the Bench to Clinical Practice

期刊

BIOMEDICINES
卷 8, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines8110461

关键词

ionizing radiations; radioprotectors; radiomitigators; free radicals; antioxidants

资金

  1. MINECO (Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad), Spain [SAF2017-83458-R]
  2. University of Valencia, Spain [OTR2017-17899INVES]
  3. Elysium Health Inc., NY, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of protective agents against harmful radiations has been a subject of investigation for decades. However, effective (ideal) radioprotectors and radiomitigators remain an unsolved problem. Because ionizing radiation-induced cellular damage is primarily attributed to free radicals, radical scavengers are promising as potential radioprotectors. Early development of such agents focused on thiol synthetic compounds, e.g., amifostine (2-(3-aminopropylamino) ethylsulfanylphosphonic acid), approved as a radioprotector by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA, USA) but for limited clinical indications and not for nonclinical uses. To date, no new chemical entity has been approved by the FDA as a radiation countermeasure for acute radiation syndrome (ARS). All FDA-approved radiation countermeasures (filgrastim, a recombinant DNA form of the naturally occurring granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, G-CSF; pegfilgrastim, a PEGylated form of the recombinant human G-CSF; sargramostim, a recombinant granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor, GM-CSF) are classified as radiomitigators. No radioprotector that can be administered prior to exposure has been approved for ARS. This differentiates radioprotectors (reduce direct damage caused by radiation) and radiomitigators (minimize toxicity even after radiation has been delivered). Molecules under development with the aim of reaching clinical practice and other nonclinical applications are discussed. Assays to evaluate the biological effects of ionizing radiations are also analyzed.

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