Advertisement

Cytogenetic effect of low dose γ-radiation in Hordeum vulgare seedlings: non-linear dose–effect relationship

  • Stanislav A. Geras’kin
  • Alla A. Oudalova
  • Jin Kyu Kim
  • Vladimir G. Dikarev
  • Nina S. Dikareva
Original Paper

Abstract

The induction of chromosome aberrations in Hordeum vulgare germinated seeds was studied after ionizing irradiation with doses in the range of 10–1,000 mGy. The relationship between the frequency of aberrant cells and the absorbed dose was found to be nonlinear. A dose-independent plateau in the dose range from about 50 to 500 mGy was observed, where the level of cytogenetic damage was significantly different from the spontaneous level. The comparison of the goodness of the experimental data fitting with mathematical models of different complexity, using the most common quantitative criteria, demonstrated the advantage of a piecewise linear model over linear and polynomial models in approximating the frequency of cytogenetical disturbances. The results of the study support the hypothesis of indirect mechanisms of mutagenesis induced by low doses. Fundamental and applied implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Chromosome Aberration Bystander Effect Root Meristem Cell Piecewise Linear Model Primary Damage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to Dr. David Copplestone, Environment Agency, Warrington, UK, for critical reading of the manuscript and help in improving the English of the paper. The paper includes findings from studies supported by the Korea-Russia Scientist Exchange Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of Korea, ISTC Project No 3003, INTAS Project No 04-83-2796.

References

  1. 1.
    Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, Hall EJ, Land CE, Little JB, Lubin JH, Preston DL, Preston RJ, Puskin JS, Ron E, Sachs RK, Samet JM, Setlow RB, Zaider M (2003) Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:13761–13766CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Muller HJ (1927) Artificial transmutation of the gene. Science 66:84–87CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Timofeeff-Ressovsky NW, Zimmer KG, Delbruck M (1935) Uber die Natur der Genmutation und der Genstruktur. Nachr Gess Wiss Gottingen 1:189–245Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ICRP (1991) 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, Annals of the ICRP 21 (1–3). Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Luchnik NV (1957) About anomaly reaction at low doses of radiation (in Russian). Biophyzica 2:86–93Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Timofeeff-Resovsky NW, Luchnik NV (1960) Cytological and biophysical basis of radiostimulation in plants (in Russian). Proc Inst Biol Ural Br Sci Acad USSR 5–17Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marples B, Lambin P, Skov KA, Joiner MC (1997) Low dose hyper-radiosensitivity and increased radioresistance in mammalian cells. Int J Radiat Biol 71:721–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marples B, Joiner MC (2000) Modification of survival by DNA repair modifiers: a probable explanation for the phenomenon of increased radioresistance. Int J Radiat Biol 76:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mothersill C, Harney J, Lyng F, Cottell D, Parsons K, Murphy D, Seymour CB (1995) Primary explants of human uroepithelium show an unusual response to low-dose irradiation with cobalt-60 gamma rays. Radiat Res 142:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Seymour CB, Mothersill C (2000) Relative contribution of bystander and targeted cell killing to the low-dose region of the radiation dose–response curve. Radiat Res 153:508–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pohl-Ruling J, Fischer P, Haas O, Obe G, Natarajan AT, van Buul PP, Buckton KE, Bianchi NO, Larramendy M, Kucerova M, Polikova Z, Leonard A, Fabri L, Sharma T, Binder W, Mukherjee RN, Mukherjee U (1983) Effect of low dose acute X-irradiation on the frequencies of chromosomal aberrations in human peripheral lymphocytes in vitro. Mutat Res 110:71–82Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lloyd DC, Edvards AA, Leonard A, Deknut G, Natarajan AT, Obe G, Palitti F, Tanzarella A, Tawn EJ (1988) Frequencies of chromosomal aberrations induced in human blood lymphocytes by low doses of X-rays. Int J Radiat Biol 53:49–55Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lloyd DC, Edwards AA, Leonard A, Deknudt GL, Verschaeve L, Natarajan AT, Darrudi F, Obe G, Palitti F, Tanzarella C, Tawn EJ (1992) Chromosomal aberrations in human lymphocytes induced in vitro by very low doses of X-rays. Int J Radiat Biol 61:335–343Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Luchnik NV, Sevankaev AV (1976) Radiation-induced chromosomal aberrations in human lymphocytes. 1. Dependence on the dose of gamma-rays and on anomaly of low doses. Mutat Res 36:363–378Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Takahashi EI, Hirai M, Tobari E, Utsugi T, Nakai S (1982) Radiation-induced chromosome aberrations in lymphocytes from man and crab-eating monkey: the dose–response relationships of low doses. Mutat Res 94:115–123Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shmakova NL, Fadeeva TA, Nasonova EA, Krasavin EA, Rsyanina AV (2002) Cytogenetic effects of low dose radiation in mammalian cells: the analysis of the phenomenon of hypersensitivity and induced radioresistance (in Russian). Radiat Biol Radioecol 42:245–250Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Skarsgard LD, Wouters BG (1997) Substructure in the cell survival response at low radiation dose: effect of different subpopulations. Int J Radiat Biol 71:737–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marples B, Joiner MC (2000) Modification of survival by DNA repair modifiers: a probable explanation for the phenomenon of increased radioresistance. Int J Radiat Biol 76:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zaichkina SI, Aptikaeva GF, Akhmadieva AKh, Smirnova EN, Antipov AV, Prilutskaia NV, Kuglik P, Shlotova Ia, Ganassi EE (1992) The characteristics of the realization of cytogenetic damage in mammalian and plant cells exposed to low doses of radiation (in Russian). Radiobiology 32:38–41Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zaka R, Chenal C, Misset MT (2002) Study of external low irradiation dose effects on induction of chromosome aberrations in Pisum sativum root tip meristem. Mutat Res 517:87–99Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Constantin MJ, Nilan RA (1982) Chromosome aberration assays in barley (Hordeum vulgare). qA report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gen-Tox Program. Mutat Res 99:13–36Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Künzel G (1971) The ratio of chemically induced chromosome aberrations to gene mutations in barley: a critical study. Mutat Res 12:397–409Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Konzak CF, Narayanan KR (1977) Methods of pre- and post-treatment in chemical mutagenesis. In: Manual on mutation breeding, 2nd Edn. FAO/IAEA Tech. Rep., Series No. 119, IAEA, Vienna, pp 71–74Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mikaelsen K, Ahnstrom G, Li WC (1968) Genetic effects of alkylating agents in barley. Influence of post-storage, metabolic state and pH of mutagen solution. Hereditas 59:353–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sideris EG, Mukhujee R, Vomvoyanni V (1975) Effect of deuterium water on the mitotic cycle, the deoxyribonucleic acid stability, and the frequency of radiation-induced chromosome aberations in barley. Radiat Res 61:457–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sandhu SS, de Serres FJ, Gopalan HN, Grant WF, Veleminsky J, Becking GC (1994) Envionmental monitoring for genotoxicity with plant systems: an introduction and study design. Mutat Res 310:169–173Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Geras’kin SA, Kim JK, Dikarev VG, Oudalova AA, Dikareva NS, Spirin YeV (2005) Cytogenetic effects of combined radioactive (137Cs) and chemical (Cd, Pb, and 2,4-d herbicide) contamination on spring barley intercalar meristem cells. Mutat Res 586:147–159Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sachs L (1972) Statistische auswertungsmethoden. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barnett V, Lewis T (1984) Outliers in statistical data. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Monographs on statistics and applied probability, vol 57. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Geras’kin SA, Sarapul’tzev BI (1993) Automatic classification of biological objects on the level of their radioresistance. Automat Rem Contr 54:182–189Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gofman J (1990) Radiation-induced cancer from low dose exposure: an independent analysis. CNR Book Division, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Merkle W (1981) Poisson goodness-of-fit tests for radiation-induced chromosome aberrations. Int J Radiat Biol 40:685–692Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Luchnik NV (1968) Biophysics of cytogenetic damage and genetic code (in Russian). Medicina, LeningradGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sasaki MS, Ejima Y, Tachibana A, Yamada T, Ishizaki K, Shimizu T, Nomura T (2002) DNA damage response pathway in radioadaptive response. Mutat Res 504:101–118Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Geras’kin SA, Zyablitskaya YeYa, Oudalova AA (1995) Radiation-induced structural mutations in root meristem of γ-irradiated hexaploid wheat seeds (in Russian). Radiat Biol Radioecol 35:137–149Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Geras’kin SA, Zyablitskaya YeYa, Oudalova AA (1997) Structural mutations in root meristem of irradiated barley seeds (in Russian). Radiat Biol Radioecol 37:82–90Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sidorov VP (1992) Prolonged mutagenesis and morphogenesis in plants under radiation, alkalines and herbicides effects (in Russian). Ph.D. Thesis, Mosc. St. University, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dubinin NP, Nemtseva LS (1972) Chromosome and chromatid aberrations resulting from irradiation of G1 phase of Allium cepa seeds cells (in Russian). Tsitol Genet 6:99–102Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zaka R, Chenal C, Misset MT (2004) Effects of low doses of short-term gamma irradiation on growth and development through two generations of Pisum sativumI. Sci Total Environ 320:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Draper NR, Smith H (1981) Applied regression analysis. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vasiliev FP (1988) Numerical approaches to extreme tasks’ solution (in Russian). Nauka, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vapnik VN (1984) Algorithms and programmes for dependencies reconstruction (in Russian). Nauka, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Geras’kin SA (1995) Critical survey of modern concepts and approaches to the low doses of ionizing radiation biological effect estimation (in Russian). Radiat Biol Radioecol 35:563–571Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Geras’kin SA, Sevankaev AV (2000) Universal character of the regularities of cytogenetic damage induced by low-level radiation and the problem of genetic risk estimation. In: Burlakova EB (ed) Low doses of radiation: are they dangerous? Nova, New York, pp 37–45Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tubiana M (1998) The report of the French Academy of Science: ‘Problems associated with the effects of low doses of ionising radiation’. J Radiol Prot 18:243–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Feinendegen LE, Pollycove M (2001) Biological responses to low doses of ionizing radiation: detriment versus hormesis. Part 1. Dose responses of cells and tissues J Nucl Med 42(7):17N–27NGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Upton AC (2003) The state of the art in the 1990s: NCRP report no. 136 on the scientific bases for linearity in the dose–response relationship for ionizing radiation. Health Phys 85:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Higson DJ (2004) The bell should toll for the linear no-threshold model. J Radiol Prot 24:315–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pollycove M, Feinendegen LE (2001) Biological responses to low doses of ionizing radiation: detriment versus hormesis. Part 2. Dose responses of organisms. J Nucl Med 42(9):26N–32NGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Geras’kin SA (1995) Concept of biological effect of low dose radiation on cells (in Russian). Radiat Biol Radioekol 35:571–580Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Baverstock K (2000) Radiation-induced genomic instability: a paradigm-breaking phenomenon and its relevance to environmentally induced cancer. Mutat Res 454:89–109Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Morgan WF (2003) Non-targeted and delayed effects of exposure to ionizing radiation: I. Radiation-induced genomic instability and bystander effects in vitro. Radiat Res 159:567–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Oudalova AA, Geras’kin SA, Dikarev VG, Nesterov YeB, Dikareva NS (2002) Induction of chromosome aberrations is non-linear within low dose region and depends on dose rate. Radiat Prot Dosim 99:245–248Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schollnberger H, Mebust MR, Crawford-Brown DJ, Eckl PM, Hofmann W (2001) Significance of cell-cycle delay, multiple initiation pathways, misrepair and replication errors in a model of radiobiological effects. Int J Radiat Biol 77:519–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Chadwick KH, Leenhouts HP, Brugmans MJ (2003) A contribution to the linear no-threshold discussion. J Radiol Prot 23:53–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Azzam EI, de Toledo SM, Gooding T, Little JB (1998) Intercellular communication is involved the bystander regulation of gene expression in human cells exposed to very low fluences of alpha particles. Radiat Res 150:497–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schofield PN (1998) Impact of genomic imprinting on genomic instability and radiation-induced mutation. Int J Radiat Biol 74:705–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Dubrova YE, Nesterov VN, Krouchinsky NG, Ostapenko VA, Neumann R, Neil DL, Jeffreys AJ (1996) Human minisatellite mutation rate after the Chernobyl accident. Nature 380:683–686CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nagasawa H, Little JB (1999) Unexpected sensitivity to the induction of mutations by very low doses of alpha-particle radiation: evidence for a bystander effect. Radiat Res 152:552–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Koterov AN, Nikol’sky AV (1999) Adaptation to irradiation in vivo (in Russian). Radiat Biol Radioecol 39:648–662Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sarapult’zev BI, Geras’kin SA (1993) Genetic basis of radioresistance and evolution (in Russian). Energoatomizdat Publishers, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lucas JN, Deng W, Moore D, Hill F, Wade M, Lewis A, Sailes F, Kramer C, Hsieh A, Galvan N (1999) Background ionizing radiation plays a minor role in the production of chromosome translocations in a control population. Int J Radiat Biol 75:819–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stanislav A. Geras’kin
    • 1
  • Alla A. Oudalova
    • 1
  • Jin Kyu Kim
    • 2
  • Vladimir G. Dikarev
    • 1
  • Nina S. Dikareva
    • 1
  1. 1.Russian Institute of Agricultural Radiology and AgroecologyObninskRussia
  2. 2.Korea Atomic Energy Research InstituteDaejeonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations