4.4 Article

Effects of G2-checkpoint dynamics on low-dose hyper-radiosensitivity

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL BIOLOGY
卷 77, 期 6-7, 页码 1969-1997

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00285-018-1236-8

关键词

Linear-Quadratic model; Induced Repair model; Early G2 checkpoint; Increased radioresistance; Hyper-radiosensitivity; Cell cycle; Cell cycle arrest; Mitotic catastrophe

资金

  1. University of Alberta President's International Doctoral Award
  2. Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In experimental studies, it has been found that certain cell lines are more sensitive to low-dose radiation than would be expected from the classical Linear-Quadratic model (LQ model). In fact, it is frequently observed that cells incur more damage at low dose (say 0.3Gy) than at higher dose (say 1Gy). This effect has been termed hyper-radiosensitivity (HRS). The effect depends on the type of cells and on their phase in the cell cycle when radiation is applied. Experiments have shown that the G2-checkpoint plays an important role in the HRS effects. Here we design and analyze a differential equation model for the cell cycle that includes G2-checkpoint dynamics and radiation treatment. We fit the model to surviving fraction data for different cell lines including glioma cells, prostate cancer cells, as well as to cell populations that are enriched in certain phases of the cell cycle. The HRS effect is measured in the literature through <, the ratio of slope of the corresponding LQ model. We derive an explicit formula for this ratio and we show that it corresponds very closely to experimental observations. Finally, we identify the dependence of this ratio on the surviving fraction at 2Gy. It was speculated in the literature that such dependence exists. Our theoretical analysis will help to more systematically identify the HRS in cell lines, and opens doors to analyze its use in cancer treatment.

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

4.4
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