Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 302, Issue 2, pp 983–988 | Cite as

Production of gamma induced reactive oxygen species and damage of DNA molecule in HaCaT cells under euoxic and hypoxic condition

  • P. Joseph
  • N. N. Bhat
  • D. Copplestone
  • Y. Narayana


The paper deals with the study of gamma radiation induced reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation in normal human keratinocytes (HaCaT) cells and quantification of subsequent damages induced on DNA molecules. The DNA damages induced in cells after gamma irradiation has been analyzed using Alkaline comet assay. The ROS produced in the cells were quantified by measuring fluorescence after loading the cells with 2′, 7′ dichlorofluorescin diacetate, a dye that is oxidized into a highly fluorescent form in the presence of peroxides. Studies reveal that in HaCaT cells radical generation occurs when exposed to ionizing radiation and it increases with dose. The induced DNA damages also increases with dose and ROS generation. The study clearly shows the importance of ROS in DNA damage induction and the cells possessing elevated levels of DNA damage after radiation exposure is due to the effect of increased levels of intracellular ROS.


Comet assay DNA Gamma radiation Oxygen enhancement ratio Reactive oxygen species 



The authors are grateful to Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences (BRNS) and Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) for the financial support. The help received from Abhay Puthli and Reeta Tiwari during the work is thankfully acknowledged.


  1. 1.
    Lori AR, Degtyareva N, Doetsch PW (2008) DNA damage-induced reactive oxygen species (ROS) stress response in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Free Radic Biol Med 45:1167–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kehrer JP (1993) Free radicals as mediators of tissue injury and disease. Crit Rev Toxicol 23:21–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sohal RS, Weindruch R (1996) Oxidative stress, caloric restriction, and aging. Science 273:59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kumar M, Ahuja S, Dahuja A, Kumar R, Singh B (2014) Gamma radiation protects fruit quality in tomato by inhibiting the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and ethylene. J Radioanal Nucl Chem. doi: 10.1007/s10967-014-3234-7 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Halliwell B (1994) Free radicals and antioxidants: a personal view. Nutr Rev 52:253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Collins AR (1999) Oxidative DNA damage, antioxidants, and cancer. Bioessays 21:238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rhaese H, Freese E (1968) Chemical analysis of DNA alteration, base liberation and backbone breakage of DNA and oligodeoxyadelylic acid induced by H2O2 and hydroxylamine. Biochim Biophys Acta 155:476–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ames BN, Gold LS (1991) Endogenous mutagens and the causes of aging and cancer. Mutat Res 251:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larson RA, Lloyd RA, Marley KA, Tuveson RW (1992) Ferric-ion-photosensitized damage to DNA by hydroxyl and non-hydroxyl radical mechanism. J Photochem Photobiol B Biol. 14:245–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Phillips BJ, James TEB, Anderson D (1984) Genetic damage in CHO cells exposed to enzymically generated active oxygen species. Mutat Res 126:265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Suzuki K, Hei TK (1996) Induction of heme oxygenase in mammalian cells by mineral fibers: distinctive effect of reactive oxygen species. Carcinogene 17:661–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McBride TJ, Preston BD, Loeb LA (1991) Mutagenic spectrum resulting from DNA damage by oxygen radicals. Biochem 30:207–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Finkel T (1998) Oxygen radicals and signaling. Curr Opin Cell Biol 10:248–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slupphaug G, Kavli B, Krokan HE (2003) The interacting pathways for prevention and repair of oxidative DNA damage. Mutat Res 531:231–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cooke MS, Evans MD, Lunec J, Dizdaroglu M (2003) Oxidative DNA damage: mechanisms, mutation, and disease. FASEB J 17:1195–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Whitaker SJ, Powell SN, McMillan TJ (1991) Molecular assays of radiation-induced DNA damage. Eur J Cancer 27:922–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singh NP, McCoy MT, Tice RR, Schneider EL (1988) A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Exp Cell Res 175:184–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tice RR, Agurell E, Anderson D, Burlinson B, Hartmann A, Kobayashi H, Miyamae Y, Rojas E, Ryu JC, Sasaki YF (2000) Single cell gel/comet assay: guidelines for in vitro and in vivo genetic toxicology testing. Environ Mol Mutagen 35:206–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hartmann A, Agurell E, Beevers C, Brendler-Schwaab S, Burlinson B, Clay P, Collins A, Smith A, Speit G et al (2003) Recommendations for conducting the in vivo alkaline comet Assay. Mutagene 18:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Joseph P, Acharya S, Sanjeev G, Bhat NN, Narayana Y (2011) Cell inactivation studies on yeast cells under euoxic and hypoxic condition using electron beam from microtron accelerator. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 290:209–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chaubey RC, Bhilwade HN, Rajagopalan R, Bannu S, Kulgod SV, Chadda VK (2000) BARC Newsletter. In: Vijai Kumar (ed) SCGE-Pro: a fluorescence based digital imaging system developed for measuring dna damage using single cell gel electrophoresis (comet assay), vol 195. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nasr-Esfahani MH, Aitken JR, Johnson MH (1990) Hydrogen peroxide levels in mouse oocytes and early cleavage stage embryos developed in vitro or in vivo. Development 109:501–507Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pandey BN, Mishra KP (2003) In vitro studies on radiation induced membrane oxidative damage in apoptotic death of mouse thymocytes. Intl J Low Radiat 1:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chaubey RC, Bhilwade Hari N, Rajagopalan Rema, Bannur Sanjay V (2001) Gamma ray induced DNA damage in human and mouse leucocytes measured by SCGE-Pro: a software developed for automated image analysis and data processing for comet assay. Mutat Res 490:187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Averbeck D, Ebert MA (1973) Changed dose-response in Saccharomyces at dose rates above 107 rad per sec. Int J Radiat Res 23:151–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alpen EL (1998) Radiat biophys, 2nd edn. Academic press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roots R, Okada S (1975) Estimation of life times and diffusion distances of radicals involved in X-ray induced DNA strand breaks or killing of mammalian cells. Radiat Res 64:306–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Acharya S, Bhat NN, Joseph P, Sanjeev G, Sreedevi B, Narayana Y (2011) Dose rate effect on micronuclei induction in human blood lymphocytes exposed to single pulse and multiple pulses of electrons. Radiat Environ Biophys 50:253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Joseph
    • 1
  • N. N. Bhat
    • 2
  • D. Copplestone
    • 3
  • Y. Narayana
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsSt Joseph’s CollegeIdukkiIndia
  2. 2.RPADBhabha Atomic Research CentreMumbaiIndia
  3. 3.Biological and Environmental Sciences, School of Natural SciencesUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK
  4. 4.Department of Studies in PhysicsMangalore UniversityMangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations