1
|
Borghini A, Labate L, Piccinini S, Panaino CMV, Andreassi MG, Gizzi LA. FLASH Radiotherapy: Expectations, Challenges, and Current Knowledge. Int J Mol Sci 2024; 25:2546. [PMID: 38473799 DOI: 10.3390/ijms25052546] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2023] [Revised: 02/12/2024] [Accepted: 02/19/2024] [Indexed: 03/14/2024] Open
Abstract
Major strides have been made in the development of FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH RT) in the last ten years, but there are still many obstacles to overcome for transfer to the clinic to become a reality. Although preclinical and first-in-human clinical evidence suggests that ultra-high dose rates (UHDRs) induce a sparing effect in normal tissue without modifying the therapeutic effect on the tumor, successful clinical translation of FLASH-RT depends on a better understanding of the biological mechanisms underpinning the sparing effect. Suitable in vitro studies are required to fully understand the radiobiological mechanisms associated with UHDRs. From a technical point of view, it is also crucial to develop optimal technologies in terms of beam irradiation parameters for producing FLASH conditions. This review provides an overview of the research progress of FLASH RT and discusses the potential challenges to be faced before its clinical application. We critically summarize the preclinical evidence and in vitro studies on DNA damage following UHDR irradiation. We also highlight the ongoing developments of technologies for delivering FLASH-compliant beams, with a focus on laser-driven plasma accelerators suitable for performing basic radiobiological research on the UHDR effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Luca Labate
- Intense Laser Irradiation Laboratory (ILIL), CNR Istituto Nazionale di Ottica, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Simona Piccinini
- Intense Laser Irradiation Laboratory (ILIL), CNR Istituto Nazionale di Ottica, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | | | | | - Leonida Antonio Gizzi
- Intense Laser Irradiation Laboratory (ILIL), CNR Istituto Nazionale di Ottica, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Barghouth PG, Melemenidis S, Montay-Gruel P, Ollivier J, Viswanathan V, Jorge PG, Soto LA, Lau BC, Sadeghi C, Edlabadkar A, Zhang R, Ru N, Baulch JE, Manjappa R, Wang J, Le Bouteiller M, Surucu M, Yu A, Bush K, Skinner L, Maxim PG, Loo BW, Limoli CL, Vozenin MC, Frock RL. FLASH-RT does not affect chromosome translocations and junction structures beyond that of CONV-RT dose-rates. Radiother Oncol 2023; 188:109906. [PMID: 37690668 PMCID: PMC10591966 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109906] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2023] [Revised: 09/01/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 09/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The impact of radiotherapy (RT) at ultra high vs conventional dose rate (FLASH vs CONV) on the generation and repair of DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) is an important question that remains to be investigated. Here, we tested the hypothesis as to whether FLASH-RT generates decreased chromosomal translocations compared to CONV-RT. MATERIALS AND METHODS We used two FLASH validated electron beams and high-throughput rejoin and genome-wide translocation sequencing (HTGTS-JoinT-seq), employing S. aureus and S. pyogenes Cas9 "bait" DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) in HEK239T cells, to measure differences in bait-proximal repair and their genome-wide translocations to "prey" DSBs generated after various irradiation doses, dose rates and oxygen tensions (normoxic, 21% O2; physiological, 4% O2; hypoxic, 2% and 0.5% O2). Electron irradiation was delivered using a FLASH capable Varian Trilogy and the eRT6/Oriatron at CONV (0.08-0.13 Gy/s) and FLASH (1x102-5x106 Gy/s) dose rates. Related experiments using clonogenic survival and γH2AX foci in the 293T and the U87 glioblastoma lines were also performed to discern FLASH-RT vs CONV-RT DSB effects. RESULTS Normoxic and physioxic irradiation of HEK293T cells increased translocations at the cost of decreasing bait-proximal repair but were indistinguishable between CONV-RT and FLASH-RT. Although no apparent increase in chromosome translocations was observed with hypoxia-induced apoptosis, the combined decrease in oxygen tension with IR dose-rate modulation did not reveal significant differences in the level of translocations nor in their junction structures. Furthermore, RT dose rate modality on U87 cells did not change γH2AX foci numbers at 1- and 24-hours post-irradiation nor did this affect 293T clonogenic survival. CONCLUSION Irrespective of oxygen tension, FLASH-RT produces translocations and junction structures at levels and proportions that are indistinguishable from CONV-RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul G Barghouth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Stavros Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Pierre Montay-Gruel
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Jonathan Ollivier
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Vignesh Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Patrik G Jorge
- Institute of Radiation Physics/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland
| | - Luis A Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Brianna C Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Cheyenne Sadeghi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Anushka Edlabadkar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Richard Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Ning Ru
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Janet E Baulch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Rakesh Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Jinghui Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Marie Le Bouteiller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Amy Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Karl Bush
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Peter G Maxim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Billy W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Charles L Limoli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Marie-Catherine Vozenin
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Richard L Frock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Cuitiño MC, Fleming JL, Jain S, Cetnar A, Ayan AS, Woollard J, Manring H, Meng W, McElroy JP, Blakaj DM, Gupta N, Chakravarti A. Comparison of Gonadal Toxicity of Single-Fraction Ultra-High Dose Rate and Conventional Radiation in Mice. Adv Radiat Oncol 2023; 8:101201. [PMID: 37008254 PMCID: PMC10050676 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101201] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2022] [Accepted: 02/08/2023] [Indexed: 02/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose Increasing evidence suggests that ultra-high-dose-rate (UHDR) radiation could result in similar tumor control as conventional (CONV) radiation therapy (RT) while reducing toxicity to surrounding healthy tissues. Considering that radiation toxicity to gonadal tissues can cause hormone disturbances and infertility in young patients with cancer, the purpose of this study was to assess the possible role of UHDR-RT in reducing toxicity to healthy gonads in mice compared with CONV-RT. Methods and Materials Radiation was delivered to the abdomen or pelvis of female (8 or 16 Gy) and male (5 Gy) C57BL/6J mice, respectively, at conventional (∼0.4 Gy/s) or ultrahigh (>100 Gy/s) dose rates using an IntraOp Mobetron linear accelerator. Organ weights along with histopathology and immunostaining of irradiated gonads were used to compare toxicity between radiation modalities. Results CONV-RT and UHDR-RT induced a similar decrease in uterine weights at both studied doses (∼50% of controls), which indicated similarly reduced ovarian follicular activity. Histologically, ovaries of CONV- and UHDR-irradiated mice exhibited a comparable lack of follicles. Weights of CONV- and UHDR-irradiated testes were reduced to ∼30% of controls, and the percentage of degenerate seminiferous tubules was also similar between radiation modalities (∼80% above controls). Pairwise comparisons of all quantitative data indicated statistical significance between irradiated (CONV or UHDR) and control groups (from P ≤ .01 to P ≤ .0001) but not between radiation modalities. Conclusions The data presented here suggest that the short-term effects of UHDR-RT on the mouse gonads are comparable to those of CONV-RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria C. Cuitiño
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Jessica L. Fleming
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Sagarika Jain
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Ashley Cetnar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Ahmet S. Ayan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Jeffrey Woollard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Heather Manring
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Wei Meng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Joseph P. McElroy
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Center for Biostatistics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Dukagjin M. Blakaj
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Nilendu Gupta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Arnab Chakravarti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Song H, Kim Y, Sung W. Modeling of the FLASH effect for ion beam radiation therapy. Phys Med 2023; 108:102553. [PMID: 37021608 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102553] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/2022] [Revised: 02/08/2023] [Accepted: 02/18/2023] [Indexed: 03/11/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Normal tissue sparing has been shown in preclinical studies under the ultra-fast dose rate condition, so-called FLASH radiotherapy. The preclinical and clinical FLASH studies are being conducted with various radiation modalities such as photons, protons, and heavy ions. The aim of this study is to propose a model to predict the dependency of the FLASH effect on linear energy transfer (LET) by quantifying the oxygen depletion. METHODS We develop an analytical model to examine the FLASH sparing effect by incorporating time-varying oxygen depletion equation and oxygen enhancement ratios according to LET. The variations in oxygen enhancement ratio (OER) are quantified over time with different dose rate (Gy/s) and LET (keV/μm). The FLASH sparing effect (FSE) is defined as the ratio of DFLASH/Dconv where Dconv is the reference absorbed dose delivered at the conventional dose rate, and DFLASH is the absorbed dose delivered at a high dose rate that causes the same amount of biological damage. RESULTS Our model suggests that the FLASH effect is significant only when the oxygen amount is at an intermediate level (10 ∼ 100 mmHg). The FSE is increased as LET decreases, suggesting that LET less than 100 keV/μm is required to induce FLASH sparing effects in normal tissue. CONCLUSIONS Oxygen depletion and recovery provide a quantitative model to understand the FLASH effect. These results highlight the FLASH sparing effects in normal tissue under the conditions with the intermediate oxygen level and low-LET region.
Collapse
|
5
|
Barghouth PG, Melemenidis S, Montay-Gruel P, Ollivier J, Viswanathan V, Jorge PG, Soto LA, Lau BC, Sadeghi C, Edlabadkar A, Manjappa R, Wang J, Le Bouteiller M, Surucu M, Yu A, Bush K, Skinner L, Maxim PG, Loo BW, Limoli CL, Vozenin MC, Frock RL. FLASH-RT does not affect chromosome translocations and junction structures beyond that of CONV-RT dose-rates. BIORXIV : THE PREPRINT SERVER FOR BIOLOGY 2023:2023.03.27.534408. [PMID: 37034651 PMCID: PMC10081175 DOI: 10.1101/2023.03.27.534408] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/19/2023]
Abstract
The molecular and cellular mechanisms driving the enhanced therapeutic ratio of ultra-high dose-rate radiotherapy (FLASH-RT) over slower conventional (CONV-RT) radiotherapy dose-rate remain to be elucidated. However, attenuated DNA damage and transient oxygen depletion are among several proposed models. Here, we tested whether FLASH-RT under physioxic (4% O 2 ) and hypoxic conditions (≤2% O 2 ) reduces genome-wide translocations relative to CONV-RT and whether any differences identified revert under normoxic (21% O 2 ) conditions. We employed high-throughput rejoin and genome-wide translocation sequencing ( HTGTS-JoinT-seq ), using S. aureus and S. pyogenes Cas9 "bait" DNA double strand breaks (DSBs), to measure differences in bait-proximal repair and their genome-wide translocations to "prey" DSBs generated by electron beam CONV-RT (0.08-0.13Gy/s) and FLASH-RT (1×10 2 -5×10 6 Gy/s), under varying ionizing radiation (IR) doses and oxygen tensions. Normoxic and physioxic irradiation of HEK293T cells increased translocations at the cost of decreasing bait-proximal repair but were indistinguishable between CONV-RT and FLASH-RT. Although no apparent increase in chromosome translocations was observed with hypoxia-induced apoptosis, the combined decrease in oxygen tension with IR dose-rate modulation did not reveal significant differences in the level of translocations nor in their junction structures. Thus, Irrespective of oxygen tension, FLASH-RT produces translocations and junction structures at levels and proportions that are indistinguishable from CONV-RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul G. Barghouth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Stavros Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Pierre Montay-Gruel
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology. Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Jonathan Ollivier
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology. Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Vignesh Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Patrik G. Jorge
- Institute of Radiation Physics/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland
| | - Luis A. Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Brianna C. Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Cheyenne Sadeghi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Anushka Edlabadkar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Rakesh Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Jinghui Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Marie Le Bouteiller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Amy Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Karl Bush
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Peter G. Maxim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Billy W. Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Charles L. Limoli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Marie-Catherine Vozenin
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology. Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Richard L. Frock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Swartz HM, Vaupel P, Flood AB. A Critical Analysis of Possible Mechanisms for the Oxygen Effect in Radiation Therapy with FLASH. ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY 2023; 1438:127-133. [PMID: 37845451 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-42003-0_21] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2023]
Abstract
The aim of this review is to stimulate readers to undertake appropriate investigations of the mechanism for a possible oxygen effect in FLASH. FLASH is a method of delivery of radiation that empirically, in animal models, appears to decrease the impact of radiation on normal tissues while retaining full effect on tumors. This has the potential for achieving a significantly increased effectiveness of radiation therapy. The mechanism is not known but, especially in view of the prominent role that oxygen has in the effects of radiation, investigations of mechanisms of FLASH have often focused on impacts of FLASH on oxygen levels. We and others have previously shown that simple differential depletion of oxygen directly changing the response to radiation is not a likely mechanism. In this review we consider how time-varying changes in oxygen levels could account for the FLASH effect by changing oxygen-dependent signaling in cells. While the methods of delivering FLASH are still evolving, current approaches for FLASH can differ from conventional irradiation in several ways that can impact the pattern of oxygen consumption: the rate of delivery of the radiation (40 Gy/s vs. 0.1 Gy/s), the time over which each fraction is delivered (e.g., <0.5 s. vs. 300 s), the delivery in pulses, the number of fractions, the size of the fractions, and the total duration of treatment. Taking these differences into account and recognizing that cell signaling is an intrinsic component of the need for cells to maintain steady-state conditions and, therefore, is activated by small changes in the environment, we delineate the potential time dependent changes in oxygen consumption and overview the cell signaling pathways whose differential activation by FLASH could account for the observed biological effects of FLASH. We speculate that the most likely pathways are those involved in repair of damaged DNA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harold M Swartz
- Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
- Dartmouth Cancer Center, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA.
- Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
| | - Peter Vaupel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center, University of Freiburg/Brsg., Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Partner Site Freiburg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Ann Barry Flood
- Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
- Dartmouth Cancer Center, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Comparison of intratumor and local immune response between MV X-ray FLASH and conventional radiotherapies. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2022; 38:138-146. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2022.11.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2022] [Revised: 11/06/2022] [Accepted: 11/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
|
8
|
Vozenin MC, Bourhis J, Durante M. Towards clinical translation of FLASH radiotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2022; 19:791-803. [DOI: 10.1038/s41571-022-00697-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
|
9
|
Assessing the DNA Damaging Effectiveness of Ionizing Radiation Using Plasmid DNA. Int J Mol Sci 2022; 23:ijms232012459. [PMID: 36293322 PMCID: PMC9604049 DOI: 10.3390/ijms232012459] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2022] [Revised: 10/11/2022] [Accepted: 10/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Plasmid DNA is useful for investigating the DNA damaging effects of ionizing radiation. In this study, we have explored the feasibility of plasmid DNA-based detectors to assess the DNA damaging effectiveness of two radiotherapy X-ray beam qualities after undergoing return shipment of ~8000 km between two institutions. The detectors consisted of 18 μL of pBR322 DNA enclosed with an aluminum seal in nine cylindrical cavities drilled into polycarbonate blocks. We shipped them to Toronto, Canada for irradiation with either 100 kVp or 6 MV X-ray beams to doses of 10, 20, and 30 Gy in triplicate before being shipped back to San Diego, USA. The Toronto return shipment also included non-irradiated controls and we kept a separate set of controls in San Diego. In San Diego, we quantified DNA single strand breaks (SSBs), double strand breaks (DSBs), and applied Nth and Fpg enzymes to quantify oxidized base damage. The rate of DSBs/Gy/plasmid was 2.8±0.7 greater for the 100 kVp than the 6 MV irradiation. The 100 kVp irradiation also resulted in 5±2 times more DSBs/SSB than the 6 MV beam, demonstrating that the detector is sensitive enough to quantify relative DNA damage effectiveness, even after shipment over thousands of kilometers.
Collapse
|
10
|
Sala L, Lyshchuk H, Šáchová J, Chvátil D, Kočišek J. Different Mechanisms of DNA Radiosensitization by 8-Bromoadenosine and 2'-Deoxy-2'-fluorocytidine Observed on DNA Origami Nanoframe Supports. J Phys Chem Lett 2022; 13:3922-3928. [PMID: 35472278 PMCID: PMC9083549 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.2c00584] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2022] [Accepted: 04/15/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
DNA origami nanoframes with two parallel DNA sequences are used to evaluate the effect of nucleoside substituents on radiation-induced DNA damage. Double strand breaks (DSB) of DNA are counted using atomic force microscopy (AFM), and total number of lesions is evaluated using real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Enhanced AT or GC content does not increase the number of DNA strand breaks. Incorporation of 8-bromoadenosine results in the highest enhancement in total number of lesions; however, the highest enhancement in DSB is observed for 2'-deoxy-2'-fluorocytidine, indicating different mechanisms of radiosensitization by nucleoside analogues with the halogen substituent on base or sugar moieties, respectively. "Bystander" effects are observed, when the number of DSB in a sequence is enhanced by a substituent in the parallel DNA sequence. The present approach eliminates limitations of previously developed methods and motivates detailed studies of poorly understood conformation or bystander effects in radiation induced damage to DNA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leo Sala
- J.
Heyrovský Institute of Physical Chemistry of CAS, Dolejškova 3, 18223 Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Hlib Lyshchuk
- J.
Heyrovský Institute of Physical Chemistry of CAS, Dolejškova 3, 18223 Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Jana Šáchová
- Laboratory
of Genomics and Bioinformatics, Institute
of Molecular Genetics of the CAS, Vídeňská 1083, 142 20 Prague, Czech Republic
| | - David Chvátil
- Nuclear
Physics Institute of the CAS, Řež 130, 250 68 Řež, Czech
Republic
| | - Jaroslav Kočišek
- J.
Heyrovský Institute of Physical Chemistry of CAS, Dolejškova 3, 18223 Prague, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|