Phenomenological Models

  • L. A. Braby
Part of the Basic Life Sciences book series (BLSC, volume 58)

Abstract

The biological effects of ionizing radiation exposure are the result of a complex sequence of physical, chemical, biochemical, and physiological interactions which are modified by characteristics of the radiation, the timing of its administration, the chemical and physical environment, and the nature of the biological system. However, it is generally agreed that the health effects in animals originate from changes in individual cells, or possibly small groups of cells, and that these cellular changes are initiated by ionizations and excitations produced by the passage of charged particles through the cells. One way to begin a search for an understanding of health effects of radiation is through the development of phenomenological models of the response. Many models have been presented and tested in the slowly evolving process of characterizing cellular response. Different phenomena (LET dependence, dose rate effect, oxygen effect etc.) and different end points (cell survival, aberration formation, transformation, etc.) have been observed, and no single model has been developed to cover all of them. Instead, a range of models covering different end points and phenomena have developed in parallel. Many of these models employ similar assumptions about some underlying processes while differing about the nature of others. An attempt is made to organize many of the models into groups with similar features and to compare the consequences of those features with the actual experimental observations. It is assumed that by showing that some assumptions are inconsistent with experimental observations, the job of devising and testing mechanistic models can be simplified.

Keywords

Glutathione Fractionation Diene Chlamydomonas Protec 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. R. Platt. Strong Infe rence. Science. 146: 347–353 (1964).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T T Puck and P. I. M arcus. Action of X-rays on Mammalian Cells. J. Experimental Med 103: 653–666 (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. M. Elkind and G. F. Whitmore. The Radiobiology of Cultured Mammalian Cells. Gordon and Breach, New York (1967).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. J. Butts and R. Katz. Theory of RBE for Heavy Ion Bombardment of Dry Enzymes and Viruses. Radiat. Res 30: 855–871 (1967).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Katz, B. Ackerson, M. Homayoonfar, and S. C. Sharma. Inactivation of Cells by Heavy Ion Bombardment. Radiat. Res 47: 402–425 (1971).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Katz, D. E. Dunn and G. L. Sinclair. Thindown in Radiobiology. Radial. Prot. Dos 13: 281–284 (1985).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. B. Curtis. The Katz Cell-Survival Model and Beams of Heavy Charged Particles. Nucl. Tracks Radiat. Meas 16: 97–103 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    V. P. Bond and M. N. Varma. Low Level Radiation Response Explained in Tèrms of Fluence and Cell Critical Volume Dose. In Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Microdosimetry, pp. 423–437. Julich, West Germany. Harwood Academic, London (1982).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. N. Varma and V. P. Bond. Empirical Evaluation of a Cell Critical Volume Dose vs. Cell Response Function for Pink Mutations in Tradescantia. In Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Microdosimetry, pp. 439–450. Julich, West Germany. Harwood Academic, London (1982).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. N. Varma, V. P. Bond and G. Matthews. Hit-Size Effectiveness Theory Applied to High Doses of Low Let Radiation for Pink Mutations in Tradescantia. Radiat. Prot. Dos 13: 307–309 (1985).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Morstin, V. P. Bond, and J. W. Baum. Probabilistic Approach to Obtain Hit-Size Effectiveness Functions Which Relate Microdosimetry and Radiobiology. Radiat. Res 120: 383–402 (1989).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Zaider and D. J. Brenner. On the Microdosimetric Definition of Quality Factors. Radiat. Res 103: 302–316 (1985).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    W.F.G. Swann and C. del Rosario. The Effect of Radioactive Emanations Upon Euglena. J. Franklin Inst 211: 303–317 (1934).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Kellerer and O. Hug. Zur Kinetik der Strahlenwirkung. Biophysik 1: 33–50 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. J. Dienes. A Kinetic Model of Biological Radiation Response. Radiat. Res 28: 183–202 (1966).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Rajewsky and H. Danzer. Uber einige Wirkungen von Strahlen. VI. Eine Erweiterung der Statistishen Theorie der Biologischen Strahlenwirkung. Z Physik 89: 412–420 (1934).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. E. Lea. A Theory of the Action of Radiations on Biological Materials Capable of Recovery. I. The Time-Intensity Factor. Br. J. Radio 11: 489–497 (1938).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    W. C. Roesch. A Model for the Action of Radiation on Simple Biological Systems. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Biological Interpretation of Dose from Accelerator-Produced Radiation, pp. 297–305. CONF-670305 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. (1967).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. M. Kellerer and H. H. Rossi. The Theory of Dual Radiation Action. Curr. Top. Radiat. Res. Q 8: 85–158 (1972).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. C. Payne and W. R. Garrett. Some Relations Between Cell Survival Models Having Different Inactivation Mechanisms. Radiat. Res 62: 388–394 (1975).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    L. A. Braby and W. C. Roesch. Testing of Dose-Rate Models with Chlamydomonas reinhardi. Radiat. Res 76: 259–270 (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    N. E. Metting, L. A. Braby, W. C. Roesch, and J. M. Nelson. Dose-rate Evidence for two Kinds of Radiation Damage in Stationary Phase Mammalian Cells. Radiat. Res 103: 204–218 (1985).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. A. Braby, J. M. Nelson, and W. C. Roesch. Comparison of Repair Rates Determined by Split-Dose and Dose-Rate Methods. Radiat. Res 82: 211–214 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. M. Nelson, L. A. Braby, and W. C. Roesch. Rapid Repair of Ionizing Radiation Injury in Chlamydomona reinhardi. Radiat. Res 83: 279–289 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. M. Nelson, L. A. Braby, N. E Metting, and W. C. Roesch. Multiple Components of Split-Dose Repair in Plateau-Phase Mammalian Cells: A New Challenge for Phenomenological Modelers. Radiat. Res. 121: 154–160 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. A. Phillips and L. J. Tolmach. Repair of Potentially Lethal Damage in X-Irradiated HeLa Cells. Radiat. Res 29: 413–432 (1966).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. H. Haynes. The Interpretation of Microbial Inactivation and Recovery Phenomena. Radiat. Res. S-6: 1–29 (1966).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. H. Haynes. The Influence of Repair Processes on Radiobiological Survival Curves. In Cell Survival After Low Doses of Radiation, T. Alper, ed., pp. 197–208. Institute of Physics/Wiley, London (1975).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    W. Pohlit. The Shape of Dose-Effect Curves for Diploid Yeast Cells Irradiated With Ionizing Particles. In Cell Survival After Low Doses of Radiation, T. Alper, ed., pp. 190–196. Institute of Physics/Wiley, London (1975).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    A. Kappos and W. Pohlit. A Cybernetic Model for Radiation Reactions in Living Cells. I. Sparsely-Ionizing Radiations; Stationary Cells. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 22: 51–65 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    W. R. Garrett and M. G. Payne. Applications of Models for Cell Survival: The Fixation-Time Picture. Radiat Res. 73:201–211 ( (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    W. Pohlit and I. R. Heyder. The Shape of Dose-Survival Curves for Mammalian Cells and Repair of Potentially Lethal Damage Analyzed by Hypertonic Treatment. Radiat. Res 87: 613–634 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    D. T. Goodhead. Models of Radiation Inactivation and Mutagenesis. In Radiation Biology in Cancer Research, R. E. Meyn and H. R. Withers, eds., pp. 231–247. Raven Press, New York (1980).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    D. T. Goodhead. Saturable Repair Models of Radiation Action in Mammalian Cells. Radiat. Res. 104:S-58 - S-67 (1985).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    S. B. Curtis. Lethal and Potentially Lethal Lesions Induced by Radiation-A Unified Repair Model. Radiat. Res 106: 252–270 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    G. J. Neary. Chromosome Aberrations and the Theory of RBE 1. General Considerations. Int. J. Radiat. Biol 9: 477–502 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    M. N. Cornforth. Testing the Notion of the One-Hit Exchange. Radiat. Res 121: 21–27 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    T. Alper and P. Howard-Flanders. Role of Oxygen in Modifying the Radiosensitivity of E. Coli. Nature 178: 978–979 (1956).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    M. Quintiliani. The Oxygen Effect in Radiation Inactivation of DNA and Enzymes. Int. J. Radiat. Biol 50: 573–594 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    J. D. Chapman and C. J. Koch. Comment on the Paper by van der Schans et al. Int. J. Radiat. Biol 50: 467–470 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    J. Kiefer. Theoretical Aspects and Implications of the Oxygen Effect. Radiation Research, O. F. Nygaard, H. I. Adler, and W. K. Sinclair, eds., pp. 1025–1037. Academic, New York (1975).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    T. Alper. Adding I.vo Components of Radiosensitization by Oxygen. Int. J. Radiat. Biol 46: 569–585 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    C. B. Seymour and C. Mothersill. Lethal Mutations, the Survival Curve Shoulder and Split-Dose Recovery. Int. J. Radiat. Biol 56: 999–1010 (1989).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. A. Braby
    • 1
  1. 1.Pacific Northwest LaboratoryRichlandUSA

Personalised recommendations