Advertisement

Assessment of DNA Damage Induction in Farm Animals After the FNPP Accident

  • Asako J. NakamuraEmail author
Open Access
Chapter

Abstract

Since the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FNPP) accident is a radiation accident which occurred as the aftermath of a devastating natural disaster, the Great East Japan Earthquake, people had to face radiation risks in the chaotic state. In the situation where general citizens, scientists and politicians were all confused, the importance of accurately assessing biological risks of radiation emerged. To understand the biological effects of radiation exposure by the accident, we measured the DNA damage level using the DNA double-strand break (DSB) marker phosphorylated histone H2AX in peripheral blood lymphocytes from farm animals left behind within a 20-km radius from FNPP (the ex-evacuation zone). As a result, statistically higher levels of DNA DSBs were detected from cattle in the ex-evacuation zone compared to non-affected control; however, it was not able to accurately evaluate the radiation dose from this accident with phosphorylated H2AX. This is thought to be caused by the fact that various changes of metabolism with the lapse of time and the living environment of individual organisms occurred. It may, therefore, be difficult to evaluate the exposure dose of chronic low-dose-rate (LDR) radiation by a single biomarker. However, in the inevitable modern society of radiation exposure and fear of nuclear accidents, our results showed that trying a certain dosimetric biomarker for the assessment of biological impacts of long-term LDR radiation exposure is effective and crucial for the protection from radiation.

Keywords

Biodosimetry DNA double-strand break Phosphorylated histone H2AX Biological effect 

12.1 Introduction

In 1998, it was first reported that histone H2AX, one of the core histones, is rapidly phosphorylated (phosphorylated histone H2AX is called γ-H2AX) at the time of induction of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) and plays an important role for recruitment of DNA damage repair proteins to the damage site [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. As phosphorylation of H2AX occurs specifically at the site of DNA DSBs, it is possible to visualize the DNA DSB site as the focus of γ-H2AX by immunofluorescent staining method using an antibody specific to γ-H2AX [2, 5, 6, 7]. In fact, it was shown that the γ-H2AX focus number and the number of DNA DSBs are the same [8]. Though DNA DSBs had been detected by experimental methods such as the comet assay and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis previously, γ-H2AX is sensitive enough to detect radiation exposure equivalent to several mGy, and the operation is simple; therefore, it is widely used as a marker of DNA DSB [6, 9, 10]. Recently, the γ-H2AX assay is used as a method of monitoring in vivo DNA DSB level for clinical trials of novel anticancer drugs and for assessment of exposure dose of cancer patients who received radiation therapy [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]. Present when this manuscript is being written (June 2018), more than 40 clinical trials using the γ-H2AX assay seem to be performed in the United States (https://clinicaltrials.gov/). Since the September 11 attacks occurred in the United States in 2001, the risk of unexpected radiation exposure increased, and the possible application of the γ-H2AX assay as a biological biomarker for correctly evaluating exposure dose has also been studied [18, 19, 20]. However, the assessment of radiation dose by the γ-H2AX assay still has problems in case of a large-scale disaster like the FNPP accident because current method does not allow us to monitor the DNA DSB level by γ-H2AX assay on site, such as at a radiation accident site. On March 11, 2011, the FNPP accident occurred, and human beings faced an unexpected radiation accident. To understand biological effects of radiation exposure due to the accident, we measured the DNA DSB level based on the γ-H2AX assay in biospecimens obtained from farm animals living in the ex-evacuation zone set within a 20-km radius from FNPP [21]. In this review, we describe the first results of DNA damage monitoring in the cattle leashed in the ex-evacuation zone and the current situation of radiation biodosimeters.

12.2 Current Status of Biomarkers for Radiation Dose Assessment

The cellular response after irradiation is considered to correlate with radiation dose; the higher the dose is, the greater the biological effect is. In other words, to correctly understand the cellular response after radiation exposure and to predict the biological influence of radiation, biomarkers for accurate estimation of radiation dose are needed. Carcinogenic risk is one of the most concerned adverse effects of radiation exposure. Since radiation-induced DNA damage is one of the causes of cancer, it is meaningful to know how much DNA damage is induced by radiation. Currently, a method of detecting chromosomal aberrations is generally used as an evaluation index of radiation exposure risk (see Chap.  20) [22]. Among chromosomal aberrations, the background level of dicentric chromosome (DC) is almost none, and there are almost no individual differences [22, 23], so the dicentric chromosome assay (DCA) is a standard protocol of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as a biodosimeter that can clearly evaluate the effect of radiation exposure [24]. However, in order to prepare metaphase spreads from the collected blood sample, it is problematic that in addition to the necessity of inducing blood leukocytes division and a culture period of several days, dose can be evaluated only if it is in a relatively high-dose range [22, 23]. In addition, although many automated analysis software for detecting chromosomal aberrations including DCs are currently being developed, experienced persons are necessary for final judgment [22, 23, 25]. As the assay is labor-intensive and time-consuming, the DCA is not adequate as a dose evaluation method in large-scale exposure but as an exposure dose evaluation method for a person who is at risk of high-dose radiation exposure at the time of emergency [26, 27, 28]. On the other hand, detection of the DNA DSB level by γ-H2AX does not require cell culture [29]. Detection of DNA DSBs by γ-H2AX in peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBLs) derived from patients who have received CT scans or CT angiography has been performed, which has shown the correlation of the DNA DSB levels with exposure doses in the low-dose (LD) range of 1 mGy [29, 30, 31, 32, 33]. In addition, dose evaluation experiments after whole-body radiation exposure using γ-H2AX have been performed using animal models [18, 20]. Bonner’s group reported the monitoring of DNA DSBs in PBLs by the γ-H2AX assay of rhesus macaque after whole-body irradiation of 0, 1, 3.5, 6.5, and 8.5 Gy [18]. Correlations of the dose-dependent linear DNA DSB levels were detected in all dose ranges up to 4 days after irradiation [18]. Recently, they reported the result of analysis of the DNA DSB level in PBLs after whole-body irradiation using γ-H2AX using swine model, and similarly to the previous report, linear relationship between radiation dose and γ-H2AX level was found 3 days after irradiation [20]. These data demonstrate that it is possible to estimate the exposure dose by DNA DSBs monitoring using the γ-H2AX assay. It should also be emphasized that the γ-H2AX assay is not limited by animal species [5]. The amino acid sequence of H2AX and the phosphorylation of serine residues at the time of DNA DSB induction are highly conserved in almost all eukaryotes.

12.3 Detection of DNA DSBs In Vivo in Farm Animals by γ-H2AX

After the occurrence of the FNPP accident, the monitoring of radionuclides such as cesium-134 (134Cs) and 137Cs has been carried out from a relatively early stage [34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40]. In contrast, dose evaluation for the assessment of biological impacts to the ecosystem was not carried out comprehensively. As mentioned above, several papers have been published, reporting that the radiation exposure dose assessment by the γ-H2AX assay can be conveniently performed for a wide range of animal species. Therefore, the γ-H2AX assay was performed on biospecimens derived from cattle in the ex-evacuation zone, and we monitored DNA damage level in vivo [21]. Briefly, peripheral blood samples obtained from cattle euthanized on site were shipped on ice conditions, and lymphocyte separation and detection of γ-H2AX were performed according to previously reported methods [6, 7, 21]. The γ-H2AX assay can be performed with the same antibody and the same experimental conditions even if the animal species is different. γ-H2AX detection was carried out in bovine cells under the same conditions as human cells [21]. As a result, a significantly higher level of γ-H2AX was detected compared to the control cohorts not affected by the FNPP accident, indicating that DNA DSBs were strongly induced in the cattle in the ex-evacuation zone (Fig. 12.1). Since there is a correlation between exposure dose and the DNA DSB level in vivo, the exposure dose was calculated based on the detected γ-H2AX level, and it corresponds to the radiation exposure equivalent to 20 mGy [21]. However, there was no correlation between estimated exposure dose and γ-H2AX level that is presumed from the radioactive Cs concentration remaining in the body of the same individual and/or ambient dose in the area animals were captured [21, 41]. It is the most important factor that DNA damage is repaired with time. Generally, after irradiation, the level of γ-H2AX reaches the maximum level from 30 min to 1 h after irradiation and decreases with DNA damage repair [5, 20, 42], which is restored to the level before irradiation within 24 h at the cell level [20, 42]. In other words, DNA double-strand breaks that occurred more than 72 hours ago have already been repaired and are not detectable by the γ-H2AX assay. Interestingly, as shown in Fig. 12.2, cells with many foci and cells with few foci are mixed. Although the γ-H2AX focus decreases with DNA damage repair, its rate of decrease is almost uniform, and γ-H2AX focus number shows the Poisson distribution, and there is no extreme heterogeneity [7, 20]. Repair process detected by disappearance of γ-H2AX foci occurs homogeneously if DNA DSB occurs simultaneously to all cells as in acute radiation exposure, but in the case of chronic exposure, DNA damage induction and damage repair might occur chronically and partly. Although the minimal DNA DSB level detected in our study is at the average about 20 mGy, more than 80% of the total cells were γ-H2AX negative, animals were exposed to chronic low-dose-rate (LDR) radiation, and the DNA DSBs induced more than 72 h before analysis could not be detected; the actual exposure dose might be higher. In fact, the γ-H2AX average value of only γ-H2AX focus positive cells was around 2.8 foci per cell (fpc), which was equivalent to radiation exposure to about 200 mGy [21]. In this study, we monitored the DNA DSB level in cattle in the ex-evacuation zone using the γ-H2AX assay and detected a high level of DNA DSBs compared to control animals [21]. Although it is difficult to evaluate accumulated dose of chronic radiation exposure by the γ-H2AX assay, our data first show biological effects of very complex radiation exposure environment such as internal and external chronic LDR exposure directly.
Fig. 12.1

γ-H2AX foci per peripheral blood lymphocytes from cattle living in control area and the ex-evacuation zone. The box plot of γ-H2AX foci per cell was shown. (Data modified from Ref. [21])

Fig. 12.2

Representative images of γ-H2AX immunostaining of peripheral blood lymphocytes from cattle living in control area and ex-evacuation zone. Green, γ-H2AX; red, DNA stained by propidium iodide

12.4 Perspective for Future Biodosimetry

In our previous study, to understand biological effects of the FNPP accident, we monitored DNA damage level in farm animals that were unleashed within the ex-evacuation zone of the FNPP accident and reported that higher levels of DNA DSBs were induced compared with non-affected control [21]. This indicates that DNA DSB induction by chronic LDR radiation exposure might be detected with γ-H2AX. In recent years, it has been reported that DNA DSB levels in inhabitants of high natural background radiation (HNBR) area can be detected by the γ-H2AX assay [43, 44, 45]. Although there was no significant difference, PBL derived from the HNBR population had trend to higher DNA DSB levels compared to PBLs derived from residents in other areas. Interestingly, DNA damage repair capacity in PBLs derived from the HNBR population was elevated, suggesting the existence of adaptive response by chronic LDR radiation [43, 45]. Taken together, monitoring of DNA DSBs by γ-H2AX may not be suitable for the assessment of cumulative dose of chronic LDR radiation, but is very valuable for evaluating biological effects of chronic LDR radiation exposure.

Research on biological effects by radiation exposure has been conducted based on experiments using animal models and epidemiological investigations of atomic bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Hibakusha) [22, 46, 47]. Although it is evident in middle to high dose that the DNA damage level and the risk of carcinogenesis increase along with the increase of radiation dose, there is still no clear answer on biological effects below 100 mGy. Long-term and large-scale research is necessary to understand the biological effect of LDR radiation because it takes time until the effect becomes evident. Recently, the importance of tissue microenvironment change due to radiation exposure in radiation-induced cancer has been pointed out [48]. For example, the rate of radiation-induced cell differentiation is several hundred to several thousand times higher than the frequency of radiation-induced mutations [49]. This indicates that radiation dose-dependent DNA damage might not merely induce tumorigenesis of cells but tissue microenvironmental changes. In fact, there are considerable evidences showing that radiation-induced inflammation and epigenetic changes promote carcinogenesis [48, 50, 51]. Thus, to understand the biological effect of radiation exposure, it is essential not merely to investigate the number of DNA damage and the mutation frequency but also to analyze microenvironmental changes in organisms for a long time using various biological markers. We need to continue the long-term and comprehensive analysis of the ecosystem around FNPP to understand correctly the effect of persistent LDR radiation.

References

  1. 1.
    Rogakou EP, Pilch DR, Orr AH et al (1998) DNA double-stranded breaks induce histone H2AX phosphorylation on serine 139. J Biol Chem 273:5858–5868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rogakou EP, Boon C, Redon C et al (1999) Megabase chromatin domains involved in DNA double-strand breaks in vivo. J Cell Biol 146:905–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paull TT, Rogakou EP, Yamazaki V et al (2000) A critical role for histone H2AX in recruitment of repair factors to nuclear foci after DNA damage. Curr Biol 10:886–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Celeste A, Petersen S, Romanienko PJ et al (2002) Genomic instability in mice lacking histone H2AX. Science 296:922–927.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069398 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonner WM, Redon CE, Dickey JS et al (2008) GammaH2AX and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 8:957–967.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2523 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nakamura A, Sedelnikova OA, Redon C et al (2006) Techniques for gamma-H2AX detection. Methods Enzymol 409:236–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0076-6879(05)09014-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Redon CE, Nakamura AJ, Sordet O et al (2011) Gamma-H2AX detection in peripheral blood lymphocytes, splenocytes, bone marrow, xenografts, and skin. Methods Mol Biol 682:249–270.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-409-8_18 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sedelnikova OA, Rogakou EP, Panyutin IG et al (2002) Quantitative detection of (125)IdU-induced DNA double-strand breaks with gamma-H2AX antibody. Radiat Res 158:486–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rothkamm K, Lobrich M (2003) Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in human cells exposed to very low x-ray doses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:5057–5062.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0830918100 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Redon CE, Nakamura AJ, Martin OA et al (2011) Recent developments in the use of gamma-H2AX as a quantitative DNA double-strand break biomarker. Aging 3:168–174.  https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.100284 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Qvarnstrom OF, Simonsson M, Johansson KA et al (2004) DNA double strand break quantification in skin biopsies. Radiotherapy Oncol: J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 72:311–317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2004.07.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sak A, Grehl S, Erichsen P et al (2007) Gamma-H2AX foci formation in peripheral blood lymphocytes of tumor patients after local radiotherapy to different sites of the body: dependence on the dose-distribution, irradiated site and time from start of treatment. Int J Radiat Biol 83:639–652.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09553000701596118 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sak A, Stuschke M (2010) Use of gammaH2AX and other biomarkers of double-strand breaks during radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 20:223–231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2010.05.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Redon CE, Nakamura AJ, Zhang YW et al (2010) Histone gammaH2AX and poly(ADP-ribose) as clinical pharmacodynamic biomarkers. Clin Cancer Res 16:4532–4542.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-0523 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Appleman LJ, Balasubramaniam S, Parise RA et al (2015) A phase i study of DMS612, a novel bifunctional alkylating agent. Clin Cancer Res 21:721–729.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-1333 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thomas A, Redon CE, Sciuto L et al (2017) Phase I study of ATR inhibitor M6620 in combination with Topotecan in patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol: Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol: Jco2017766915.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2017.76.6915 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Balasubramaniam S, Redon CE, Peer CJ et al (2018) Phase I trial of belinostat with cisplatin and etoposide in advanced solid tumors, with a focus on neuroendocrine and small cell cancers of the lung. Anti-Cancer Drugs.  https://doi.org/10.1097/cad.0000000000000596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Redon CE, Nakamura AJ, Gouliaeva K et al (2010) The use of gamma-H2AX as a biodosimeter for total-body radiation exposure in non-human primates. PLoS One 5:e15544.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015544 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horn S, Barnard S, Rothkamm K (2011) Gamma-H2AX-based dose estimation for whole and partial body radiation exposure. PLoS One 6:e25113.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025113 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moroni M, Maeda D, Whitnall MH et al (2013) Evaluation of the gamma-H2AX assay for radiation biodosimetry in a swine model. Int J Mol Sci 14:14119–14135.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms140714119 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nakamura AJ, Suzuki M, Redon CE et al (2017) The causal relationship between DNA damage induction in bovine lymphocytes and the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. Radiat Res 187:630–636.  https://doi.org/10.1667/rr14630.1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bender MA, Awa AA, Brooks AL et al (1988) Current status of cytogenetic procedures to detect and quantify previous exposures to radiation. Mutat Res 196:103–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Romm H, Wilkins RC, Coleman CN et al (2011) Biological dosimetry by the triage dicentric chromosome assay: potential implications for treatment of acute radiation syndrome in radiological mass casualties. Radiat Res 175:397–404.  https://doi.org/10.1667/rr2321.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ISO19238 (2014) Radiological protection – Performance criteria for service laboratories performing biological dosimetry by cytogeneticsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilkins RC, Romm H, Kao TC et al (2008) Interlaboratory comparison of the dicentric chromosome assay for radiation biodosimetry in mass casualty events. Radiat Res 169:551–560.  https://doi.org/10.1667/rr1272.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hayata I, Kanda R, Minamihisamatsu M et al (2001) Cytogenetical dose estimation for 3 severely exposed patients in the JCO criticality accident in Tokai-mura. J Radiat Res 42(Suppl):S149–S155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wojcik A, Gregoire E, Hayata I et al (2004) Cytogenetic damage in lymphocytes for the purpose of dose reconstruction: a review of three recent radiation accidents. Cytogenet Genome Res 104:200–205.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000077489 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Suto Y, Hirai M, Akiyama M et al (2013) Biodosimetry of restoration workers for the Tokyo electric power company (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station accident. Health Phys 105:366–373.  https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e3182995e42 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lobrich M, Rief N, Kuhne M et al (2005) In vivo formation and repair of DNA double-strand breaks after computed tomography examinations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:8984–8989.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0501895102 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rothkamm K, Balroop S, Shekhdar J et al (2007) Leukocyte DNA damage after multi-detector row CT: a quantitative biomarker of low-level radiation exposure. Radiology 242:244–251.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2421060171 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kuefner MA, Grudzenski S, Schwab SA et al (2009) DNA double-strand breaks and their repair in blood lymphocytes of patients undergoing angiographic procedures. Investig Radiol 44:440–446.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181a654a5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kuefner MA, Grudzenski S, Hamann J et al (2010) Effect of CT scan protocols on x-ray-induced DNA double-strand breaks in blood lymphocytes of patients undergoing coronary CT angiography. Eur Radiol 20:2917–2924.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1873-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brand M, Sommer M, Achenbach S et al (2012) X-ray induced DNA double-strand breaks in coronary CT angiography: comparison of sequential, low-pitch helical and high-pitch helical data acquisition. Eur J Radiol 81:e357–e362.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.11.027 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yasunari TJ, Stohl A, Hayano RS et al (2011) Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of Japanese soils due to the Fukushima nuclear accident. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:19530–19534.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1112058108 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Endo S, Kimura S, Takatsuji T et al (2012) Measurement of soil contamination by radionuclides due to the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident and associated estimated cumulative external dose estimation. J Environ Radioact 111:18–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2011.11.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yoshida N, Kanda J (2012) Geochemistry. Tracking the Fukushima radionuclides. Science 336:1115–1116.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1219493 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tazoe H, Hosoda M, Sorimachi A et al (2012) Radioactive pollution from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in the terrestrial environment. Radiat Prot Dosim 152:198–203.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncs222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kuroda K, Kagawa A, Tonosaki M (2013) Radiocesium concentrations in the bark, sapwood and heartwood of three tree species collected at Fukushima forests half a year after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident. J Environ Radioact 122:37–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2013.02.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Torii T, Sugita T, Okada CE et al (2013) Enhanced analysis methods to derive the spatial distribution of 131I deposition on the ground by airborne surveys at an early stage after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident. Health Phys 105:192–200.  https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e318294444e CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Terashima I, Shiyomi M, Fukuda H (2014) (134)Cs and (137)Cs levels in a grassland, 32 km northwest of the Fukushima 1 Nuclear Power Plant, measured for two seasons after the fallout. J Plant Res 127:43–50.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10265-013-0608-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Urushihara Y, Kawasumi K, Endo S et al (2016) Analysis of plasma protein concentrations and enzyme activities in cattle within the ex-evacuation zone of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident. PLoS One 11:e0155069.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155069 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Redon CE, Dickey JS, Bonner WM et al (2009) Gamma-H2AX as a biomarker of DNA damage induced by ionizing radiation in human peripheral blood lymphocytes and artificial skin. Adv Space Res: Off J Comm Space Res 43:1171–1178.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2008.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jain V, Kumar PR, Koya PK et al (2016) Lack of increased DNA double-strand breaks in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of individuals from high level natural radiation areas of Kerala coast in India. Mutat Res 788:50–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2016.03.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hasan Basri IK, Yusuf D, Rahardjo T et al (2017) Study of gamma-H2AX as DNA double strand break biomarker in resident living in high natural radiation area of Mamuju, West Sulawesi. J Environ Radioact 171:212–216.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2017.02.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jain V, Saini D, Kumar PRV et al (2017) Efficient repair of DNA double strand breaks in individuals from high level natural radiation areas of Kerala coast, South-West India. Mutat Res 806:39–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2017.09.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shimizu Y, Kodama K, Nishi N et al (2010) Radiation exposure and circulatory disease risk: Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivor data, 1950-2003. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 340:b5349.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b5349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ozasa K, Shimizu Y, Suyama A et al (2012) Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors, report 14, 1950-2003: an overview of cancer and noncancer diseases. Radiat Res 177:229–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Barcellos-Hoff MH, Park C, Wright EG (2005) Radiation and the microenvironment - tumorigenesis and therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 5:867–875.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1735 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Watanabe M, Suzuki N, Sawada S et al (1984) Repair of lethal, mutagenic and transforming damage induced by X-rays in golden hamster embryo cells. Carcinogenesis 5:1293–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Aypar U, Morgan WF, Baulch JE (2011) Radiation-induced epigenetic alterations after low and high LET irradiations. Mutat Res 707:24–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2010.12.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Morioka T, Miyoshi-Imamura T, Blyth BJ et al (2015) Ionizing radiation, inflammation, and their interactions in colon carcinogenesis in Mlh1-deficient mice. Cancer Sci 106:217–226.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cas.12591 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological Science, College of ScienceIbaraki UniversityMitoJapan

Personalised recommendations