What role for DNA damage and repair in the bystander response?

The radiation-induced bystander effect challenges the accepted paradigm of direct DNA damage in response to energy deposition driving the biological consequences of radiation exposure. With the bystander response, cells which have not been directly exposed to radiation respond to their neighbours being targeted. In our own studies we have used novel targeted microbeam approaches to specifically irradiate parts of individual cells within a population to quantify the bystander response and obtain mechanistic information. Using this approach it has become clear that energy deposited by radiation in nuclear DNA is not required to trigger the effect, with cytoplasmic irradiation required. Irradiated cells also trigger a bystander response regardless of whether they themselves live or die, suggesting that the phenotype of the targeted cell is not a determining factor. Despite this however, a range of evidence has shown that repair status is important for dealing with the consequences of a bystander signal. Importantly, repair processes involved in the processing of dsb appear to be involved suggesting that the bystander response involves the delayed or indirect production of dsb-type lesions in bystander cells. Whether these are infact true dsb or complexes of oxidised bases in combination with strand breaks and the mechanisms for their formation, remains to be elucidated.

Bystander-induced differentiation: a major response to targeted irradiation of a urothelial explant model.

A ureter primary explant technique, using porcine tissue sections was developed to study bystander effects under in vivo like conditions where dividing and differentiated cells are present. Targeted irradiations of ureter tissue fragments were performed with the Gray Cancer Institute charged particle microbeam at a single location (2 microm precision) with 10 3He2+ particles (5 MeV; LET 70 keV/microm). After irradiation the ureter tissue section was incubated for 7 days allowing explant outgrowth to be formed. Differentiation was estimated using antibodies to Uroplakin III, a specific marker of terminal urothelial differentiation. Even although only a single region of the tissue section was targeted, thousands of additional cells were found to undergo bystander-induced differentiation in the explant outgrowth. This resulted in an overall increase in the fraction of differentiated cells from 63.5+/-5.4% to 76.6+/-5.6%. These changes are much greater than that observed for the induction of damage in this model. One interpretation of these results is that in the tissue environment, differentiation is a much more significant response to targeted irradiation and potentially a protective mechanism.

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.