Advertisement

Radiation and Environmental Biophysics

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 397–410 | Cite as

Direct action of radiation on mummified cells: modeling of computed tomography by Monte Carlo algorithms

  • Johann Wanek
  • Robert Speller
  • Frank Jakobus Rühli
Original Paper

Abstract

X-ray imaging is a nondestructive and preferred method in paleopathology to reconstruct the history of ancient diseases. Sophisticated imaging technologies such as computed tomography (CT) have become common for the investigation of skeletal disorders in human remains. Researchers have investigated the impact of ionizing radiation on living cells, but never on ancient cells in dry tissue. The effects of CT exposure on ancient cells have not been examined in the past and may be important for subsequent genetic analysis. To remedy this shortcoming, we developed different Monte Carlo models to simulate X-ray irradiation on ancient cells. Effects of mummification were considered by using two sizes of cells and three different phantom tissues, which enclosed the investigated cell cluster. This cluster was positioned at the isocenter of a CT scanner model, where the cell hit probabilities P(0,1,…, n) were calculated according to the Poisson distribution. To study the impact of the dominant physics process, CT scans for X-ray spectra of 80 and 120 kVp were simulated. Comparison between normal and dry tissue phantoms revealed that the probability of unaffected cells increased by 21 % following cell shrinkage for 80 kVp, while for 120 kVp, a further increase of unaffected cells of 23 % was observed. Consequently, cell shrinkage caused by dehydration decreased the impact of X-ray radiation on mummified cells significantly. Moreover, backscattered electrons in cortical bone protected deeper-lying ancient cells from radiation damage at 80 kVp X-rays.

Keywords

CT imaging Target theory Cell shrinkage Monte Carlo simulation Ancient DNA 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Béhnaz Jarrahi, from the Institute of Neuroradiology at the University Hospital Zurich in Switzerland, for manuscript proofreading and suggestions. We would like to acknowledge the Mäxi-Stiftung in Zurich for their generous support.

References

  1. Agostinelli S, Allison J, Amako K, Apostolakis J, Araujo H, Arce P et al (2003) Geant4—a simulation toolkit. Nucl Instrum Methods A 506(3):250–303ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ALARA (2013) As low as reasonable achievable. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/alara.html. Accessed 8 Feb 2013
  3. Alpen EL (1998) Radiation biophysics, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  4. Aufderheide AC (2003) The scientific study of mummies, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Aufderheide AC (2009) Reflections about bizarre mummification practices on mummies at Egypt’s Dakhleh oasis: a review. Anthropol Anz 67(4):385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aufderheide AC, Cartmell L, Zlonis M, Sheldrick P (2004) Mummification practices at Kellis Site in Egypt’s Dakhleh Oasis. JSSEA 31Google Scholar
  7. Baccarelli I, Gianturco FA, Scifoni E, Solov’yov AV, Surdutovich E (2010) Molecular level assessments of radiation biodamage. Eur Phys J D60:1–10ADSGoogle Scholar
  8. Ballarini F (2010) From DNA radiation damage to cell death: theoretical approaches. J Nucleic Acids 2010:350–608 Google Scholar
  9. Beecher-Monas E (2007) Evaluating scientific evidence: an interdisciplinary framework for intellectual due process. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Berg HC (1993) Random walks in biology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p 152Google Scholar
  11. Bigu J, Hussein MI, Hussein AZ (2000) Radiation measurements in Egyptian pyramids and tombs—occupational exposure of workers and public. J Environ Radioact 47:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boone JM, Seibert JA (1997) An accurate method for computer-generating tungsten anode x-ray spectra from 30 to 140 kV. Med Phys 24(11):1661–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Braams R, Hutchinson F, Ray D (1958) Changes in the sensitivity of enzymes in the dry state to radiation. Nature 182(4648):1506Google Scholar
  14. Champlot S, Berthelot C, Pruvost M, Bennett EA, Grange T, Geigl EM (2010) An efficient multistrategy DNA decontamination procedure of PCR reagents for hypersensitive PCR Applications. PLoS ONE 5(9):e13042. doi: 10.1371 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chauhan RP, Nain M, Kant K (2008) Radon diffusion studies through some building materials: effect of grain size. Radiat Meas 43:S445–S448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chhem RK (2008) PaleoRadiology imaging mummies and fossils. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  17. Constantinou C, Attix FH, Paliwal BRA (1982) Solid water phantom material for radiotherapy X-ray and gamma-ray beam calibrations. Med Phys 9:436–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crowther JA (1924) Some considerations relative to the action of x-rays on tissue cells. Proc R Soc Lond (Biol) 96:207–211ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. deMesquita CH, Neto JMF, Hamada MM (2007) Target theory applied in the radiation damage analysis for organic detectors. Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record 2:1313–1317Google Scholar
  20. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Ionizing Radiation Fact Book, EPA-402-F-06-061Google Scholar
  21. Freed KF (1981) Polymers as self-avoiding walks. Ann Prob 9(4):537–556MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. FU (2013) Freie Universität Berlin. http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/cgi-bin/molform. Accessed 4 Feb 2013
  23. Geant4 Material Database (2012) chapter 8, Appendix http://geant4.web.cern.ch/geant4/UserDocumentation/UsersGuides/ForApplicationDeveloper/html/apas10.html. Accessed 22 July 2012
  24. Goodhead DT, Nikjoo H (1989) Track structure analysis of ultrasoft X-rays compared to high- and low-LET radiations. Int J Radiat Biol 55:513–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gray PHK (1967) Radiography of ancient Egyptian mummies. Med Radiogr Photogr 43:34–44Google Scholar
  26. Grieshaber BM, Osborne DL, Doubleday AF, Kaestle FA (2008) A Pilot study into the effects of X-ray and computed tomography exposure on the amplification of DNA from bone. J Archaeol Sci 35(3):681–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gruber E, Salama E, Rühm W (2011) Real-time measurement of individual occupational radon exposures in tombs of the Valley of the Kings, Egypt. Radiat Prot Dosim 144(1–4):620–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gu WY (2003) Effects of hydration and fixed charge density on fluid transport in charged hydrated soft tissues. Ann Biomed Eng 31:1162–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gunderson LL, Tepper JE (2012) Clinical radiation oncology. Elsevier Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  30. HepRApp (2012) HepRep browser Application. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~perl/HepRApp. Accessed 5 Sept 2012
  31. Hutchinson F (1963) Radiation effects on macromolecules of biological importance. Annu Rev Nu Sci 13:535–564ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. IEC (2002) Medical electrical equipment: part 2-44. Particular requirements for the safety of x-ray equipment for computed tomography. IEC 60601-2-44Google Scholar
  33. Incerti S, Seznec H, Simon M, Barberet P, Habchi C, Moretto P (2009) Monte Carlo dosimetry for targeted irradiation of individual cells using a microbeam facility. Radiat Prot Dosim 133(1):2–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Isenberg AR (2002) Forensic mitochondrial DNA analysis: a different crime-solving tool. FBI Law Enforcement BulletinGoogle Scholar
  35. Ivanchenko VN, Incerti S, Francis Z, Tran HN, Karamitros M, Bernal MA, Champion C, Guèye P (2012) Combination of electromagnetic physics for microdosimetry in liquid water with the Geant4 Monte Carlo simulation toolkit. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 273:95–97ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jarry G, DeMarco JJ, Beifuss U, Cagnon CH, McNitt-Gray MF (2003) A Monte Carlo-based method to estimate radiation dose from spiral CT: from phantom testing to patient-specific models. Phys Med Biol 48(16):2645–2663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kanias T, Acker JP (2006) Mammalian cell desiccation: facing the challenges. Cell Preserv Technol 4:253–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kefi R (2011) Ancient DNA investigations: a review on their significance in different research fields. Int J Anthrop 4:61–76MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. Keller G, Hoffmann B (2000) The radon diffusion length as a criterion for the radon tightness. In: IRPA10 conference proceedings, HiroshimaGoogle Scholar
  40. Kellerer AM (1980) Biophysikalische Grundlagen der Medizin, Beiträge zur Theorienbildung. Gustav Fischer Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  41. Kim S, Song H, Samei E, Yin FF, Yoshizumi TT (2011) Computed tomography dose index and dose length product for cone-beam CT: Monte Carlo simulations. J Appl Clin Med Phys 12(2):3395Google Scholar
  42. Knapp M, Hofreiter M (2010) Next generation sequencing of ancient DNA: requirements, strategies and perspectives. Genes 1:227–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Koenig W (1896) 14 Photographien von Roentgen-Strahlen aufgenommen im Physikalischen Verein zu Frankfurt a. M. JA Barth, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  44. Kudryashov YB (2008) Radiation biophysics (ionizing radiation). Nova Sci, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Lea DE (1955) Actions of radiations on living cells, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Lynnerup N (2007) Mummies. Yearb Phys Anthropol 50:162–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meyer P, Groetz JE, Katz R, Fromm M, Chambaudet AM (1997) Simulation of a microdosimetry problem: behaviour of a pseudorandom series at a low probability. J Chem Soc, Cambridge, pp 282–285Google Scholar
  48. Mullis K, Fallona FA (1987) Specific synthesis of DNA in vitro via a polymerase-catalyzed chain reaction. Meth Enzym 155:335–350Google Scholar
  49. Öhrström L, Bitzer A, Walther M, Rühli FJ (2010) Technical note: Terahertz imaging of ancient mummies and bone. Am J Phys Anthropol 142(3):497–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Okada S (1970) In: Altman K, Gerber G, Okada S (eds) Radiation biochemistry, vol 1. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Parson W (2009) Bedeutung der mtDNA-Analyse für forensische Fragestellungen. Springer, Medizin Verlag. http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00194-009-0594-3.pdf#page-1. Accessed 5 Feb 2013
  52. Physics Reference Manual (2010) Version: Geant4 9.4Google Scholar
  53. Poinar HN, Schwarz C, Qi J, Shapiro B, Macphee RD, Buiques B, Tikhonov A et al (2006) Metagenomics to paleogenomics: large-scale sequencing of mammoth DNA. Science 311(5759):392–394ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roots R, Okada S (1972) Protection of DNA molecules of cultured mammalian cells from radiation-induced single-strand scissions by various alcohols and SH compounds. Int J Radiat Biol 21:329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rossi HH, Zaider M (1996) Microdosimetry and its applications. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  56. Rühli F, von Waldburg H, Nielles-Vallespin S, Böni T, Speier P (2007) Clinical magnetic resonance imaging of ancient dry mummies without rehydration. JAMA 298:2618–2620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Saber-Khiabani E (2012) Mitochondrial DNA. http://de.scribd.com/doc/91405619/mito-dna. Accessed 3 Oct 2012
  58. Semikhodskii A (2007) Dealing with DNA evidence a legal guide. Routledge-Cavendish, LondonGoogle Scholar
  59. Unnik JGV, Broerse JJ, Geleijns J, Jansen JThM, Zoetelief J, Zweers D (1997) Survey of CT techniques and absorbed dose in various Dutch hospitals. Brit J Radiol 70:367–371Google Scholar
  60. UNSCEAR (2010) Sources and effects of ionizing radiation: UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Indexes: UNGoogle Scholar
  61. Wang ZM, Shen W, Kotler DP, Heshka S, Wielopolski L, Aloia JF, Nelson ME, Pierson RN Jr, Heymsfield SB (2003) Total-body protein: a new cellular mass and distribution prediction model. Am J Clin Nutr 78:979–984Google Scholar
  62. Wilson DE (1959) The effect of ionizing radiation on the enzyme desoxyribonuclease in the dry state. Int J Rad Biol 4:360–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Xun J, Hao Y, Xuejun G, Steve BJ (2012) Fast Monte Carlo simulation for patient-specific CT/CBCT imaging dose calculation. Phys Med Biol 57:577Google Scholar
  64. Zaidi H, Ay MR (2007) Current status and new horizons in Monte Carlo simulation of X-ray CT scanners. Med Biol Eng Comput 45(9):809–17 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johann Wanek
    • 1
    • 2
  • Robert Speller
    • 2
  • Frank Jakobus Rühli
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Evolutionary Medicine, Institute of AnatomyUniversity of ZürichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Medical Physics and BioengineeringUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations