Directional genomic hybridization: inversions as a potential biodosimeter for retrospective radiation exposure
- 325 Downloads
Chromosome aberrations in blood lymphocytes provide a useful measure of past exposure to ionizing radiation. Despite the widespread and successful use of the dicentric assay for retrospective biodosimetry, the approach suffers substantial drawbacks, including the fact that dicentrics in circulating blood have a rather short half-life (roughly 1–2 years by most estimates). So-called symmetrical aberrations such as translocations are far more stable in that regard, but their high background frequency, which increases with age, also makes them less than ideal for biodosimetry. We developed a cytogenetic assay for potential use in retrospective biodosimetry that is based on the detection of chromosomal inversions, another symmetrical aberration whose transmissibility (stability) is also ostensibly high. Many of the well-known difficulties associated with inversion detection were circumvented through the use of directional genomic hybridization, a method of molecular cytogenetics that is less labor intensive and better able to detect small chromosomal inversions than other currently available approaches. Here, we report the dose-dependent induction of inversions following exposure to radiations with vastly different ionization densities [i.e., linear energy transfer (LET)]. Our results show a dramatic dose-dependent difference in the yields of inversions induced by low-LET gamma rays, as compared to more damaging high-LET charged particles similar to those encountered in deep space.
KeywordsChromosome inversions Biodosimetry Ionizing radiation FISH DGH Directional genomic hybridization Strand-specific hybridization
Funding for this work from NASA (NNX08AB65G; NNX09CE42P; NNX10CB05C; NNJ06HA29A) and NIH/NIAID (R01AI080486-02) is gratefully acknowledged.
Conflict of interest
A conflict of interest may be perceived for FAR, EHG, JSB, SMB and MNC as they are founders and shareholders of KromaTiD Inc.
The experiments reported here comply with the ethical standards for research in the United States of America.
- Bhatti P, Preston DL, Doody MM, Hauptmann M, Kampa D, Alexander BH, Petibone D, Simon SL, Weinstock RM, Bouville A, Yong LC, Freedman DM, Mabuchi K, Linet MS, Edwards AA, Tucker JD, Sigurdson AJ (2007) Retrospective biodosimetry among United States radiologic technologists. Radiat Res 167(6):727–734. doi: 10.1667/RR0894.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Goodwin EH, Meyne J, Bailey SM (1993) Strand-specific in situ hybridization reveals long-range molecular order in repetitive DNA. Cytogenet Cell Genet 63(4):253Google Scholar
- IAEA (2001) International Atomic Energy Agency. Cytogenetic Analysis for Radiation Dose Assessment. A Manual.:127Google Scholar
- ICRU (2002) Retrospective assessment of exposures to ionising radiation ICRU Report 68. International Commission on Radiation Units and MeasurementsGoogle Scholar
- Kawata T, Ito H, George K, Wu H, Cucinotta FA (2004) Chromosome aberrations induced by high-LET radiations. Uchu Seibutsu Kagaku 18(4):216–223Google Scholar
- Lea DE (1946) Actions of radiations on living cells. In: Genetics and cytology actions of radiations on living cells. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Lloyd DC, Edwards AA (1983) Chromosome aberrations in human lymphocytes: effect of radiation quality, dose and dose rate. In: Ishihara T, Sasaki MS (eds) Radiation-induced chromosome damage in man. Liss, New York, pp 23–49Google Scholar
- Lucas JN, Deng W, Oram SW, Hill FS, Durante M, George K, Wu H, Owens CL, Yang T (1999) Theoretical and experimental tests of a chromosomal fingerprint for densely ionizing radiation based on F ratios calculated from stable and unstable chromosome aberrations. Radiat Res 151(1):85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Revell SH (1983) Relationship between chromosome damage and cell death. In: Ishihara T, Sasaki MS (eds) Radiation-induced chromosome damage in man. Liss, New York, pp 215–233Google Scholar
- Sax K (1938) Chromosome aberrations induced by X-rays. Genetics 23(5):494–516Google Scholar
- Sigurdson AJ, Ha M, Hauptmann M, Bhatti P, Sram RJ, Beskid O, Tawn EJ, Whitehouse CA, Lindholm C, Nakano M, Kodama Y, Nakamura N, Vorobtsova I, Oestreicher U, Stephan G, Yong LC, Bauchinger M, Schmid E, Chung HW, Darroudi F, Roy L, Voisin P, Barquinero JF, Livingston G, Blakey D, Hayata I, Zhang W, Wang C, Bennett LM, Littlefield LG, Edwards AA, Kleinerman RA, Tucker JD (2008) International study of factors affecting human chromosome translocations. Mutat Res 652(2):112–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar