Are mouse lens epithelial cells more sensitive to [gamma]-irradiation than lymphocytes?
In this pilot study we compared for the first time the radiation sensitivity of mouse lens epithelial cells (LECs) and mouse lymphocytes. We freshly prepared LECs and lymphocytes and irradiated them with [gamma]-rays (^sup 137^Cs; doses ranging from 0.25 to 2Â Gy). DNA damage and repair were evaluat...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Radiation and environmental biophysics 2013-05, Vol.52 (2), p.279 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 279 |
container_title | Radiation and environmental biophysics |
container_volume | 52 |
creator | Bannik, Kristina Rössler, Ute Faus-kessler, Theresa Gomolka, Maria Hornhardt, Sabine Dalke, Claudia Klymenko, Olena Rosemann, Michael Trott, Klaus-rüdiger Atkinson, Michael Kulka, Ulrike Graw, Jochen |
description | In this pilot study we compared for the first time the radiation sensitivity of mouse lens epithelial cells (LECs) and mouse lymphocytes. We freshly prepared LECs and lymphocytes and irradiated them with [gamma]-rays (^sup 137^Cs; doses ranging from 0.25 to 2Â Gy). DNA damage and repair were evaluated by alkaline comet assay and [gamma]H2AX foci assay. Using the comet assay, we observed a dose-dependent increase in DNA damage in both cell types. The faster formation of single- and double-strand breaks in LECs of C57BL/6 mice at doses below 1Â Gy needs to be confirmed in other mouse strains. Immunofluorescence for [gamma]H2AX foci showed a higher degree of lesions in LECs from C57BL/6J mice compared to those of JF1 mice and to lymphocytes of both strains. Correspondingly, repair of DNA damage proceeded faster in LECs of C57BL/6J mice compared to LECs of JF1 mice and lymphocytes of both strains. It is obvious that the lymphocytes of both strains repaired DNA lesions more slowly than the corresponding LECs. In conclusion, our results demonstrate that LECs of C57Bl/6 mice show a steeper doseâ[euro]"response than lymphocytes in both types of experiments. It shows that both test systems are able to be used also at doses below 0.25Â Gy. The observed difference in DNA repair between the LECs from C57BL/6J mice compared to the LECs from JF1 mice and to the lymphocytes of both strains warrants further experiments to identify the underlying molecular mechanisms.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00411-012-0451-8 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1330877661</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2949743821</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_13308776613</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNzsFqAjEUheEgFZyqD9BdwHXaeyfTGWdVRCw-gFBBRIK9dSKZyTQ3I_j2ZtEH6Oosvn9xhHhBeEWA6o0BCkQFmCso3lEtRyLDQucqh7p-EhloQFXqYj8Rz8xXAKzKss7E1yqQbP3AJB11LKm3sSFnjZNnco6TpYAT2WhvJKOXh4tpW3NUNgTzbU20vpOxMZ1097Zv_PkeiT9mYvxjHNP8b6di8bnZrbeqD_53II6nqx9Cl-iEWsOySndQ_696AGmzSLg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1330877661</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Are mouse lens epithelial cells more sensitive to [gamma]-irradiation than lymphocytes?</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Bannik, Kristina ; Rössler, Ute ; Faus-kessler, Theresa ; Gomolka, Maria ; Hornhardt, Sabine ; Dalke, Claudia ; Klymenko, Olena ; Rosemann, Michael ; Trott, Klaus-rüdiger ; Atkinson, Michael ; Kulka, Ulrike ; Graw, Jochen</creator><creatorcontrib>Bannik, Kristina ; Rössler, Ute ; Faus-kessler, Theresa ; Gomolka, Maria ; Hornhardt, Sabine ; Dalke, Claudia ; Klymenko, Olena ; Rosemann, Michael ; Trott, Klaus-rüdiger ; Atkinson, Michael ; Kulka, Ulrike ; Graw, Jochen</creatorcontrib><description>In this pilot study we compared for the first time the radiation sensitivity of mouse lens epithelial cells (LECs) and mouse lymphocytes. We freshly prepared LECs and lymphocytes and irradiated them with [gamma]-rays (^sup 137^Cs; doses ranging from 0.25 to 2Â Gy). DNA damage and repair were evaluated by alkaline comet assay and [gamma]H2AX foci assay. Using the comet assay, we observed a dose-dependent increase in DNA damage in both cell types. The faster formation of single- and double-strand breaks in LECs of C57BL/6 mice at doses below 1Â Gy needs to be confirmed in other mouse strains. Immunofluorescence for [gamma]H2AX foci showed a higher degree of lesions in LECs from C57BL/6J mice compared to those of JF1 mice and to lymphocytes of both strains. Correspondingly, repair of DNA damage proceeded faster in LECs of C57BL/6J mice compared to LECs of JF1 mice and lymphocytes of both strains. It is obvious that the lymphocytes of both strains repaired DNA lesions more slowly than the corresponding LECs. In conclusion, our results demonstrate that LECs of C57Bl/6 mice show a steeper doseâ[euro]"response than lymphocytes in both types of experiments. It shows that both test systems are able to be used also at doses below 0.25Â Gy. The observed difference in DNA repair between the LECs from C57BL/6J mice compared to the LECs from JF1 mice and to the lymphocytes of both strains warrants further experiments to identify the underlying molecular mechanisms.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0301-634X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-2099</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00411-012-0451-8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Heidelberg: Springer Nature B.V</publisher><subject>Bioassays ; Cellular biology ; Deoxyribonucleic acid ; DNA ; DNA damage ; Eyes & eyesight ; Gamma rays ; Irradiation ; Lesions ; Lymphocytes ; Rodents</subject><ispartof>Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2013-05, Vol.52 (2), p.279</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27922,27923</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bannik, Kristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rössler, Ute</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faus-kessler, Theresa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gomolka, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hornhardt, Sabine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dalke, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klymenko, Olena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosemann, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trott, Klaus-rüdiger</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kulka, Ulrike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graw, Jochen</creatorcontrib><title>Are mouse lens epithelial cells more sensitive to [gamma]-irradiation than lymphocytes?</title><title>Radiation and environmental biophysics</title><description>In this pilot study we compared for the first time the radiation sensitivity of mouse lens epithelial cells (LECs) and mouse lymphocytes. We freshly prepared LECs and lymphocytes and irradiated them with [gamma]-rays (^sup 137^Cs; doses ranging from 0.25 to 2Â Gy). DNA damage and repair were evaluated by alkaline comet assay and [gamma]H2AX foci assay. Using the comet assay, we observed a dose-dependent increase in DNA damage in both cell types. The faster formation of single- and double-strand breaks in LECs of C57BL/6 mice at doses below 1Â Gy needs to be confirmed in other mouse strains. Immunofluorescence for [gamma]H2AX foci showed a higher degree of lesions in LECs from C57BL/6J mice compared to those of JF1 mice and to lymphocytes of both strains. Correspondingly, repair of DNA damage proceeded faster in LECs of C57BL/6J mice compared to LECs of JF1 mice and lymphocytes of both strains. It is obvious that the lymphocytes of both strains repaired DNA lesions more slowly than the corresponding LECs. In conclusion, our results demonstrate that LECs of C57Bl/6 mice show a steeper doseâ[euro]"response than lymphocytes in both types of experiments. It shows that both test systems are able to be used also at doses below 0.25Â Gy. The observed difference in DNA repair between the LECs from C57BL/6J mice compared to the LECs from JF1 mice and to the lymphocytes of both strains warrants further experiments to identify the underlying molecular mechanisms.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><subject>Bioassays</subject><subject>Cellular biology</subject><subject>Deoxyribonucleic acid</subject><subject>DNA</subject><subject>DNA damage</subject><subject>Eyes & eyesight</subject><subject>Gamma rays</subject><subject>Irradiation</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Lymphocytes</subject><subject>Rodents</subject><issn>0301-634X</issn><issn>1432-2099</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNzsFqAjEUheEgFZyqD9BdwHXaeyfTGWdVRCw-gFBBRIK9dSKZyTQ3I_j2ZtEH6Oosvn9xhHhBeEWA6o0BCkQFmCso3lEtRyLDQucqh7p-EhloQFXqYj8Rz8xXAKzKss7E1yqQbP3AJB11LKm3sSFnjZNnco6TpYAT2WhvJKOXh4tpW3NUNgTzbU20vpOxMZ1097Zv_PkeiT9mYvxjHNP8b6di8bnZrbeqD_53II6nqx9Cl-iEWsOySndQ_696AGmzSLg</recordid><startdate>20130501</startdate><enddate>20130501</enddate><creator>Bannik, Kristina</creator><creator>Rössler, Ute</creator><creator>Faus-kessler, Theresa</creator><creator>Gomolka, Maria</creator><creator>Hornhardt, Sabine</creator><creator>Dalke, Claudia</creator><creator>Klymenko, Olena</creator><creator>Rosemann, Michael</creator><creator>Trott, Klaus-rüdiger</creator><creator>Atkinson, Michael</creator><creator>Kulka, Ulrike</creator><creator>Graw, Jochen</creator><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130501</creationdate><title>Are mouse lens epithelial cells more sensitive to [gamma]-irradiation than lymphocytes?</title><author>Bannik, Kristina ; Rössler, Ute ; Faus-kessler, Theresa ; Gomolka, Maria ; Hornhardt, Sabine ; Dalke, Claudia ; Klymenko, Olena ; Rosemann, Michael ; Trott, Klaus-rüdiger ; Atkinson, Michael ; Kulka, Ulrike ; Graw, Jochen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_13308776613</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Bioassays</topic><topic>Cellular biology</topic><topic>Deoxyribonucleic acid</topic><topic>DNA</topic><topic>DNA damage</topic><topic>Eyes & eyesight</topic><topic>Gamma rays</topic><topic>Irradiation</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Lymphocytes</topic><topic>Rodents</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bannik, Kristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rössler, Ute</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faus-kessler, Theresa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gomolka, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hornhardt, Sabine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dalke, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klymenko, Olena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosemann, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trott, Klaus-rüdiger</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kulka, Ulrike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graw, Jochen</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Radiation and environmental biophysics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bannik, Kristina</au><au>Rössler, Ute</au><au>Faus-kessler, Theresa</au><au>Gomolka, Maria</au><au>Hornhardt, Sabine</au><au>Dalke, Claudia</au><au>Klymenko, Olena</au><au>Rosemann, Michael</au><au>Trott, Klaus-rüdiger</au><au>Atkinson, Michael</au><au>Kulka, Ulrike</au><au>Graw, Jochen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Are mouse lens epithelial cells more sensitive to [gamma]-irradiation than lymphocytes?</atitle><jtitle>Radiation and environmental biophysics</jtitle><date>2013-05-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>52</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>279</spage><pages>279-</pages><issn>0301-634X</issn><eissn>1432-2099</eissn><abstract>In this pilot study we compared for the first time the radiation sensitivity of mouse lens epithelial cells (LECs) and mouse lymphocytes. We freshly prepared LECs and lymphocytes and irradiated them with [gamma]-rays (^sup 137^Cs; doses ranging from 0.25 to 2Â Gy). DNA damage and repair were evaluated by alkaline comet assay and [gamma]H2AX foci assay. Using the comet assay, we observed a dose-dependent increase in DNA damage in both cell types. The faster formation of single- and double-strand breaks in LECs of C57BL/6 mice at doses below 1Â Gy needs to be confirmed in other mouse strains. Immunofluorescence for [gamma]H2AX foci showed a higher degree of lesions in LECs from C57BL/6J mice compared to those of JF1 mice and to lymphocytes of both strains. Correspondingly, repair of DNA damage proceeded faster in LECs of C57BL/6J mice compared to LECs of JF1 mice and lymphocytes of both strains. It is obvious that the lymphocytes of both strains repaired DNA lesions more slowly than the corresponding LECs. In conclusion, our results demonstrate that LECs of C57Bl/6 mice show a steeper doseâ[euro]"response than lymphocytes in both types of experiments. It shows that both test systems are able to be used also at doses below 0.25Â Gy. The observed difference in DNA repair between the LECs from C57BL/6J mice compared to the LECs from JF1 mice and to the lymphocytes of both strains warrants further experiments to identify the underlying molecular mechanisms.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</abstract><cop>Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Nature B.V</pub><doi>10.1007/s00411-012-0451-8</doi></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0301-634X |
ispartof | Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2013-05, Vol.52 (2), p.279 |
issn | 0301-634X 1432-2099 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1330877661 |
source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Bioassays Cellular biology Deoxyribonucleic acid DNA DNA damage Eyes & eyesight Gamma rays Irradiation Lesions Lymphocytes Rodents |
title | Are mouse lens epithelial cells more sensitive to [gamma]-irradiation than lymphocytes? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T23%3A44%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Are%20mouse%20lens%20epithelial%20cells%20more%20sensitive%20to%20%5Bgamma%5D-irradiation%20than%20lymphocytes?&rft.jtitle=Radiation%20and%20environmental%20biophysics&rft.au=Bannik,%20Kristina&rft.date=2013-05-01&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=279&rft.pages=279-&rft.issn=0301-634X&rft.eissn=1432-2099&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00411-012-0451-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2949743821%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1330877661&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |