New advances in radiation biology.

Current understanding of risk associated with low-dose radiation exposure has for many years been embedded in the linear-no-threshold (LNT) approach, based on simple extrapolation from the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Radiation biology research has supported the LNT approach although much of this has been limited to relatively high-dose studies. Recently, with new advances for studying effects of low-dose exposure in experimental models and advances in molecular and cellular biology, a range of new effects of biological responses to radiation has been observed. These include genomic instability, adaptive responses and bystander effects. Most have one feature in common in that they are observed at low doses and suggest significant non-linear responses. These new observations pose a significant challenge to our understanding of low-dose exposure and require further study to elucidate mechanisms and determine their relevance.

Microsatellite analysis for determination of the mutagenicity of extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields and ionising radiation in vitro.

Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) have been reported to induce lesions in DNA and to enhance the mutagenicity of ionising radiation. However, the significance of these findings is uncertain because the determination of the carcinogenic potential of EMFs has largely been based on investigations of large chromosomal aberrations. Using a more sensitive method of detecting DNA damage involving microsatellite sequences, we observed that exposure of UVW human glioma cells to ELF-EMF alone at a field strength of 1 mT (50 Hz) for 12 h gave rise to 0.011 mutations/locus/cell. This was equivalent to a 3.75-fold increase in mutation induction compared with unexposed controls. Furthermore, ELF-EMF increased the mutagenic capacity of 0.3 and 3 Gy gamma-irradiation by factors of 2.6 and 2.75, respectively. These results suggest not only that ELF-EMF is mutagenic as a single agent but also that it can potentiate the mutagenicity of ionising radiation. Treatment with 0.3 Gy induced more than 10 times more mutations per unit dose than irradiation with 3 Gy, indicating hypermutability at low dose.

Radiation induced bystander signals are independent of DNA damage and DNA repair capacity of the irradiated cells.

Evidence is accumulating that irradiated cells produce signals, which interact with non-exposed cells in the same population. Here, we analysed the mechanism for bystander signal arising in wild-type CHO cells and repair deficient varients, focussing on the relationship between DNA repair capacity and bystander signal arising in irradiated cells. In order to investigate the bystander effect, we carried out medium transfer experiments after X-irradiation where micronuclei were scored in non-targeted DSB repair deficient xrs5 cells. When conditioned medium from irradiated cells was transferred to unirradiated xrs5 cells, the level of induction was independent of whether the medium came from irradiated wild-type, ssb or dsb repair deficient cells. This result suggests that the activation of a bystander signal is independent of the DNA repair capacity of the irradiated cells. Also, pre-treatment of the irradiated cells with 0.5% DMSO, which suppresses micronuclei induction in CHO but not in xrs5 cells, suppressed bystander effects completely in both conditioned media, suggesting that DMSO is effective for suppression of bystander signal arising independently of DNA damage in irradiated cells. Overall the work presented here adds to the understanding that it is the repair phenotype of the cells receiving bystander signals, which determines overall response rather than that of the cell producing the bystander signal.

Radiation-induced bystander and adaptive responses in cell and tissue models.

The use of microbeam approaches has been a major advance in probing the relevance of bystander and adaptive responses in cell and tissue models. Our own studies at the Gray Cancer Institute have used both a charged particle microbeam, producing protons and helium ions and a soft X-ray microprobe, delivering focused carbon-K, aluminium-K and titanium-K soft X-rays. Using these techniques we have been able to build up a comprehensive picture of the underlying differences between bystander responses and direct effects in cell and tissue-like models. What is now clear is that bystander dose-response relationships, the underlying mechanisms of action and the targets involved are not the same as those observed for direct irradiation of DNA in the nucleus. Our recent studies have shown bystander responses even when radiation is deposited away from the nucleus in cytoplasmic targets. Also the interaction between bystander and adaptive responses may be a complex one related to dose, number of cells targeted and time interval.