Deposition of Ionizing Energy

362-07-2

CQOQDQWUFQDJMK-SSTWWWIQSA-N

2-Methoxyestradiol

DTXSID3040938

31430-18-9

KYRVNWMVYQXFEU-UHFFFAOYSA-N

Nocodazole

DTXSID9031800

CHEBI:26523

CHEBI reactive oxygen species

CHEBI:16991

CHEBI deoxyribonucleic acid

GO:0005694

GO chromosome

PR:000029191

PR cell cycle-related cyclin

GO:1903409

GO reactive oxygen species biosynthetic process

MP:0003674

MP oxidative stress

GO:0051305

GO chromosome movement towards spindle pole

D005298

MESH fertility

GO:0051726

GO regulation of cell cycle

WIKI increased

WIKI functional change

WIKI abnormal

WIKI decreased

WIKI disrupted

Gamma radiation

2017-04-15T16:04:31

Ionizing Radiation Ionizing radiation can vary in energy, dose, charge, and in the spatial distributions of energy transferred to other matter (linear energy transfer per unit length or LET) (ICRU 1970). At the same dose, low and high LET both generate energy deposition events, including many higher energy events (Goodhead and Nikjoo 1989). However, they differ in the spatial distribution and upper range of intensity of energy deposited. Lower LET such as gamma rays sparsely deposit many individual excitations or small clusters of excitations of low energy (Goodhead 1988). In contrast, high LET such as alpha particles have fewer tracks but readily transfer their energy to matter and therefore deposit their energy over a much smaller area (Goodhead 1994). Consequently, alpha and other high LET particles penetrate less deeply into tissue, interactions are densely focused on a narrow track, and individual energy depositions can be large (Goodhead 1988). These different energy deposition patterns can lead to differences in radiation effects including the pattern of DNA damage.

Exposure to ionizing radiation can come from natural and industrial sources. Space and terrestrial radiation includes a range of LET particles, while diagnostic radiation methods such as X-ray imaging, mammography and CT scans use low LET X-rays. Radiation therapy can use an external beam to direct radiation on a focused tissue area, or deposit solid or liquid radioactive materials in the body that release (mostly gamma) radiation internally. External radiotherapy typically uses X-rays but is moving towards higher LET charged particles such as protons and heavy ions (Durante, Orecchia et al. 2017).

2019-05-03T12:36:36

2019-05-07T12:12:13

Estrogen

2019-05-08T11:40:27

2-Methoxyestradiol

2019-11-07T15:30:05

Nocodazole

2016-11-29T18:42:27

WikiUser_28

Vertebrates

10090

NCBI mouse

10116

NCBI rat

WCS_9606

common toxicological species human

9606

NCBI Homo sapiens

10090

NCBI Mus musculus

6239

NCBI Caenorhabditis elegans

Deposition of Ionizing Energy

Ionizing Energy

Molecular

AOPWiki 2018-12-19T11:20:47

2021-12-13T08:03:15

Increased, Reactive oxygen species

Cellular

Biological State: increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) Biological compartment: an entire cell -- may be cytosolic, may also enter organelles. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are O2- derived molecules that can be both free radicals (e.g. superoxide, hydroxyl, peroxyl, alcoxyl) and non-radicals (hypochlorous acid, ozone and singlet oxygen) (Bedard and Krause 2007; Ozcan and Ogun 2015). ROS production occurs naturally in all kinds of tissues inside various cellular compartments, such as mitochondria and peroxisomes (Drew and Leeuwenburgh 2002; Ozcan and Ogun 2015). Furthermore, these molecules have an important function in the regulation of several biological processes – they might act as antimicrobial agents or triggers of animal gamete activation and capacitation (Goud et al. 2008; Parrish 2010; Bisht et al. 2017).  However, in environmental stress situations (exposure to radiation, chemicals, high temperatures) these molecules have its levels drastically increased, and overly interact with macromolecules, namely nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and lipids, causing cell and tissue damage (Brieger et al. 2012; Ozcan and Ogun 2015).

Photocolorimetric assays (Sharma et al. 2017; Griendling et al. 2016) or through commercial kits purchased from specialized companies. Yuan, Yan, et al., (2013) described ROS monitoring by using H2-DCF-DA, a redox-sensitive fluorescent dye. Briefly, the harvested cells were incubated with H2-DCF-DA (50 µmol/L final concentration) for 30 min in the dark at 37°C. After treatment, cells were immediately washed twice, re-suspended in PBS, and analyzed on a BD-FACS Aria flow cytometry. ROS generation was based on fluorescent intensity which was recorded by excitation at 504 nm and emission at 529 nm. Lipid peroxidation (LPO) can be measured as an indicator of oxidative stress damage Yen, Cheng Chien, et al., (2013). Chattopadhyay, Sukumar, et al. (2002) assayed the generation of free radicals within the cells and their extracellular release in the medium by addition of yellow NBT salt solution (Park et al., 1968). Extracellular release of ROS converted NBT to a purple colored formazan. The cells were incubated with 100 ml of 1 mg/ml NBT solution for 1 h at 37 °C and the product formed was assayed at 550 nm in an Anthos 2001 plate reader. The observations of the ‘cell-free system’ were confirmed by cytological examination of parallel set of explants stained with chromogenic reactions for NO and ROS.

ROS is a normal constituent found in all organisms.

High Unspecific

High

All life stages

High

B.H. Park, S.M. Fikrig, E.M. Smithwick Infection and nitroblue tetrazolium reduction by neutrophils: a diagnostic aid Lancet, 2 (1968), pp. 532-534 Bedard, Karen, and Karl-Heinz Krause. 2007. “The NOX Family of ROS-Generating NADPH Oxidases: Physiology and Pathophysiology.” Physiological Reviews 87 (1): 245–313. Bisht, Shilpa, Muneeb Faiq, Madhuri Tolahunase, and Rima Dada. 2017. “Oxidative Stress and Male Infertility.” Nature Reviews. Urology 14 (8): 470–85. Brieger, K., S. Schiavone, F. J. Miller Jr, and K-H Krause. 2012. “Reactive Oxygen Species: From Health to Disease.” Swiss Medical Weekly 142 (August): w13659. Chattopadhyay, Sukumar, et al. "Apoptosis and necrosis in developing brain cells due to arsenic toxicity and protection with antioxidants." Toxicology letters 136.1 (2002): 65-76. Drew, Barry, and Christiaan Leeuwenburgh. 2002. “Aging and the Role of Reactive Nitrogen Species.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 959 (April): 66–81. Goud, Anuradha P., Pravin T. Goud, Michael P. Diamond, Bernard Gonik, and Husam M. Abu-Soud. 2008. “Reactive Oxygen Species and Oocyte Aging: Role of Superoxide, Hydrogen Peroxide, and Hypochlorous Acid.” Free Radical Biology & Medicine 44 (7): 1295–1304. Griendling, Kathy K., Rhian M. Touyz, Jay L. Zweier, Sergey Dikalov, William Chilian, Yeong-Renn Chen, David G. Harrison, Aruni Bhatnagar, and American Heart Association Council on Basic Cardiovascular Sciences. 2016. “Measurement of Reactive Oxygen Species, Reactive Nitrogen Species, and Redox-Dependent Signaling in the Cardiovascular System: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.” Circulation Research 119 (5): e39–75. Ozcan, Ayla, and Metin Ogun. 2015. “Biochemistry of Reactive Oxygen and Nitrogen Species.” In Basic Principles and Clinical Significance of Oxidative Stress, edited by Sivakumar Joghi Thatha Gowder. Rijeka: IntechOpen. Parrish, A. R. 2010. “2.27 - Hypoxia/Ischemia Signaling.” In Comprehensive Toxicology (Second Edition), edited by Charlene A. McQueen, 529–42. Oxford: Elsevier. Sharma, Gunjan, Nishant Kumar Rana, Priya Singh, Pradeep Dubey, Daya Shankar Pandey, and Biplob Koch. 2017. “p53 Dependent Apoptosis and Cell Cycle Delay Induced by Heteroleptic Complexes in Human Cervical Cancer Cells.” Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & Pharmacotherapie 88 (April): 218–31. Yen, Cheng Chien, et al. "Inorganic arsenic causes cell apoptosis in mouse cerebrum through an oxidative stress-regulated signaling pathway." Archives of toxicology 85 (2011): 565-575. Yuan, Yan, et al. "Cadmium-induced apoptosis in primary rat cerebral cortical neurons culture is mediated by a calcium signaling pathway." PloS one 8.5 (2013): e64330. AOPWiki 2016-11-29T18:41:29

2023-07-26T14:34:09

Increase, DNA damage

Increase, DNA Damage

Molecular

DNA nucleotide damage, single, and double strand breaks occur in the course of cellular operations such as DNA repair and replication and can be induced directly and in neighboring “bystander” cells by internal or external stressors like reactive oxygen species, chemicals, and radiation. Ionizing radiation and RONS such as hydroxyl radicals or peroxide can create a range of lesions (a change in molecular structure) in the base of the nucleotide, with guanine particularly vulnerable because of its low redox potential (David, O'Shea et al. 2007). The same stressors can also break the sugar (deoxyribose)-phosphate backbone creating a single strand break. Simultaneous proximal breaks in both strands of DNA form double strand breaks, which are considered to be more destructive and mutagenic than lesions or single strand breaks. Double strand breaks can generate chromosomal abnormalities including changes in chromosomal number, breaks and gaps, translocations, inversions, and deletions (Yang, Craise et al. 1992; Haag, Hsu et al. 1996; Ponnaiya, Cornforth et al. 1997; Yang, Georgy et al. 1997; Unger, Wienberg et al. 2010; Behjati, Gundem et al. 2016; Morishita, Muramatsu et al. 2016). However, DNA lesions and single strand breaks can also be destructive and mutagenic. Lesions can lead to point mutations (David, O'Shea et al. 2007) or single strand breaks (Regulus, Duroux et al. 2007). Lesions and single strand breaks can also promote the formation of double strand breaks: replication fork collapse and double strand breaks sometimes occur during mitosis when the replisome encounters an unrepaired single strand break (Kuzminov 2001), and clustered lesions and closely opposed single strand breaks can also form double strand breaks (Chaudhry and Weinfeld 1997; Vispe and Satoh 2000; Shiraishi, Shikazono et al. 2017). Complex damage consists of any combination of closely opposed DNA lesions, abasic sites, crosslinks, single, or double strand breaks in proximity. While classically induced by ionizing radiation, there is also evidence that it can be induced by oxidative activity (Sharma, Collins et al. 2016) or even by a single oxidizing particle (Ravanat, Breton et al. 2014). Complex damage is more difficult to repair (Kuhne, Rothkamm et al. 2000; Stenerlow, Hoglund et al. 2000; Pinto, Prise et al. 2005; Rydberg, Cooper et al. 2005). DNA damage and resulting repair activity can trigger a halt in the cell cycle, cell death (apoptosis), and cause permanent changes to DNA including deletions, translocations, and sequence changes. DNA damage is also associated with an increase in genomic instability - the new appearance of DNA damage including double strand breaks, mutations, and chromosomal damage following repair of initial damage in affected cells or in clonal descendants or neighbors of DNA damaged cells. The mechanism behind this long term DNA damage is not clear, but telomere erosion appears to play a major role (Murnane 2012; Sishc, Nelson et al. 2015). Genomic instability is more common and longer lasting following complex damage (Ponnaiya, Cornforth et al. 1997), and is influenced by multiple factors including variants in DNA repair genes (Ponnaiya, Cornforth et al. 1997; Yu, Okayasu et al. 2001; Yin, Menendez et al. 2012), RONS (Dayal, Martin et al. 2008), estrogen (Kutanzi and Kovalchuk 2013), caspases (Liu, He et al. 2015), and telomeres (Sishc, Nelson et al. 2015).

DNA damage can be studied in isolated DNA, fixed cells, or living cells. Types of damage that can be detected include single and double strand breaks, nucleotide damage, complex damage, and chromosomal or telomere damage. The OECD test guideline for DNA synthesis Test No. 486 (OECD 1997) detects nucleotide excision repair, so it will reflect the formation of bulky DNA adducts but not the majority of oxidative damage to nucleotides, which is typically repaired via the Base Excision Repair pathway. The OECD test guideline alkaline comet assay Test No. 489 (OECD 2016) detects single and double strand breaks, including those arising from repair as well as some (alkali sensitive) nucleotide lesions including some lesions from oxidative damage. OECD tests for chromosomal damage and micronuclei Test No. 473, 475, 483, and 487 measure longer term effects of DNA damage but these tests require the damaged cell to subsequently undergo replication (OECD 2016; OECD 2016; OECD 2016; OECD 2016).  They can therefore reflect a wider range of sources of DNA damage including changes in mitosis. Finally, tests for mutations reveal past DNA damage that resulted in a heritable change, and these are described in the key event ‘Increase in Mutation’. Many other (non-test guideline) techniques have been used to examine specific forms of DNA damage (Table 1). Double strand breaks are commonly reported because of the significant risk attributed to breaks and the relative ease of detecting and quantifying them. Historically, single and double strand breaks were measured using gel electrophoresis, but are now commonly visualized microscopically using fluorescent or other labeled probes for double and single strand break repair such as H2AX and XRCC2.  Base lesions can also be detected using labeled probes for base excision repair enzymes, or by chemical methods such as mass spectroscopy. Refinements on these methods can be used to characterize complex or clustered damage, in which various forms of damage occur in close proximity on a DNA molecule (Lorat, Timm et al. 2016; Nikitaki, Nikolov et al. 2016). Certain challenges are common to all methods of detecting DNA damage. In the time required to initiate the detection method, some DNA may already be repaired, leading to undercounting of damage. On the other hand, apoptotic DSBs may be incorrectly included in a measurement of direct (non-apoptotic) induction of DSB damage unless controlled. All methods have difficulty distinguishing individual components of clustered lesions, and microscopic methods may undercount disparate breaks that are processed together in repair centers (Barnard, Bouffler et al. 2013). Methods that use isolated DNA (gel electrophoresis, analytical chemistry) are vulnerable to artifacts and must ensure that the DNA sample is protected from oxidative damage during extraction (Pernot, Hall et al. 2012; Barnard, Bouffler et al. 2013; Ravanat, Breton et al. 2014). Table 1. Common methods of detecting DNA damage <table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="height:22px; width:127px"> Target </td> <td style="height:22px; width:167px"> Name </td> <td style="height:22px; width:133px"> Method </td> <td style="height:22px; width:211px"> Strengths/Weaknesses </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="height:22px; width:127px"> Nucleotide damage </td> <td style="height:22px; width:167px"> Single cell gel electrophoresis (comet assay) with restriction enzymes (Collins 2004) </td> <td style="height:22px; width:133px"> Gel electrophoresis   </td> <td style="height:22px; width:211px"> A variant of the comet assay in which restriction enzymes allow the identification of different types of nucleotide damage. The comet assay is more sensitive than PFGE, detecting damage from 0.1 Gy ionizing radiation (Pernot, Hall et al. 2012). A reproducible high-throughput application of the assay is available (Ge, Prasongtanakij et al. 2014; Sykora, Witt et al. 2018), and the test requires only a small (single cell) sample. Requires destruction of the cell. </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="height:22px; width:127px"> Nucleotide damage </td> <td style="height:22px; width:167px"> Labeled probes including Biotrin OxyDNA and anti- 8-oxoguanine-DNA glycosylase (OGG1) for oxidative damage and AP endonuclease (APE1) for Base Excision Repair of less bulky lesions such as oxidative damage. </td> <td style="height:22px; width:133px"> Microscopy, FACS </td> <td style="height:22px; width:211px"> Most useful with FACS or other measures of average or relative intensity, as locations and numbers of damaged nucleotides can be difficult to distinguish using fluorescence microscopy. (Ogawa, Kobayashi et al. 2003; Nikitaki, Nikolov et al. 2016). </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="height:22px; width:127px"> Nucleotide damage </td> <td style="height:22px; width:167px"> High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) </td> <td style="height:22px; width:133px"> Analytical chemistry </td> <td style="height:22px; width:211px"> Capable of quantifying low levels of specific nucleotide lesions (Madugundu, Cadet et al. 2014; Ravanat, Breton et al. 2014). Requires destruction of the cell. </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="height:22px; width:127px"> Nucleotide damage </td> <td style="height:22px; width:167px"> Unscheduled DNA synthesis test OECD Test Guideline 486 (OECD 1997) </td> <td style="height:22px; width:133px"> Autoradiography </td> <td style="height:22px; width:211px"> Measures DNA damage that is repaired using Nucleotide Excision Repair - mostly bulky adducts (OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 2016). </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="height:22px; width:127px"> Non-specific DNA strand breaks </td> <td style="height:22px; width:167px"> Single cell gel electrophoresis (comet assay), alkali conditions OECD Test Guideline 489 (OECD 2016) </td> <td style="height:22px; width:133px"> Gel electrophoresis </td> <td style="height:22px; width:211px"> When used in alkali conditions, the comet assay reveals single and double strand breaks and alkali-sensitive nucleotide lesions. See single cell gel electrophoresis (comet assay) with restriction enzymes above for further comments.     </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="height:22px; width:127px"> Single strand breaks </td> <td style="height:22px; width:167px"> Labeled probe pXRCC1 (Lorat, Brunner et al. 2015) </td> <td style="height:22px; width:133px"> Microscopy </td> <td style="height:22px; width:211px"> Fluorescent probes can label single strand breaks in cells, while immunogold labeling is able to distinguish multiple single strand breaks in clusters (Lorat, Timm et al. 2016; Nikitaki, Nikolov et al. 2016). </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="height:22px; width:127px"> Double strand breaks </td> <td style="height:22px; width:167px"> Single cell gel electrophoresis (comet assay), neutral conditions </td> <td style="height:22px; width:133px"> Gel electrophoresis </td> <td style="height:22px; width:211px"> Neutral conditions help minimize the release of single strand breaks coiled DNA and alkali lesions, allowing the measurement of double strand breaks. Since single strand breaks can still appear, assay is not very sensitive or specific to double strand breaks (Pernot, Hall et al. 2012). See single cell gel electrophoresis (comet assay) with restriction enzymes above for further comments. </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="height:22px; width:127px"> Double strand breaks </td> <td style="height:22px; width:167px"> Pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) </td> <td style="height:22px; width:133px"> Gel electrophoresis </td> <td style="height:22px; width:211px"> Permits the quantitative measurement of double strand breaks, and can be combined with immunoblotting to detect DNA-associated proteins (Lobrich, Rydberg et al. 1995; Kawashima, Yamaguchi et al. 2017). Considered less sensitive than comet assay, but detected damage from 0.25 Gy ionizing radiation (Gradzka and Iwanenko 2005). Requires destruction of the cell. </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="height:22px; width:127px"> Double strand breaks </td> <td style="height:22px; width:167px"> Labeled probes including phosphorylated H2AX, 53BP1, Ku70, ATM (Lorat, Brunner et al. 2015) </td> <td style="height:22px; width:133px"> Microscopy </td> <td style="height:22px; width:211px"> Fluorescent probes can label individual double breaks in cells allowing for quantification, with immunogold labeling resolving breaks in clusters (Lorat, Timm et al. 2016; Nikitaki, Nikolov et al. 2016). Sensitive: detects damage from 0.001 Gy ionizing radiation (Rothkamm and Lobrich 2003; Ojima, Ban et al. 2008). </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="height:22px; width:127px"> Chromosomal damage </td> <td style="height:22px; width:167px"> Chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei OECD Test Guidelines 473, 475, 483, and 487 (OECD 2016; OECD 2016; OECD 2016; OECD 2016) </td> <td style="height:22px; width:133px"> Microscopy </td> <td style="height:22px; width:211px"> Detects major DNA damage resulting from large breaks and rearrangements, or mitotic failures. Damage does not appear until DNA undergoes mitosis, so slower and limited to damage in replicating cells. Insensitive tosmall deletions and substitutions. </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

CL:0000255

CL eukaryotic cell

<a name="_ENREF_1">Barnard, S., S. Bouffler, et al. (2013). "The shape of the radiation dose response for DNA double-strand break induction and repair." Genome integrity 4(1): 1.</a> <a name="_ENREF_2">Behjati, S., G. Gundem, et al. (2016). "Mutational signatures of ionizing radiation in second malignancies." Nat Commun 7: 12605.</a> <a name="_ENREF_3">Chaudhry, M. A. and M. Weinfeld (1997). "Reactivity of human apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease and Escherichia coli exonuclease III with bistranded abasic sites in DNA." The Journal of biological chemistry 272(25): 15650-15655.</a> <a name="_ENREF_4">Collins, A. R. (2004). "The comet assay for DNA damage and repair: principles, applications, and limitations." Molecular biotechnology 26(3): 249-261.</a> <a name="_ENREF_5">David, S. S., V. L. O'Shea, et al. (2007). "Base-excision repair of oxidative DNA damage." Nature 447(7147): 941-950.</a> <a name="_ENREF_6">Dayal, D., S. M. Martin, et al. (2008). "Hydrogen peroxide mediates the radiation-induced mutator phenotype in mammalian cells." Biochem J 413(1): 185-191.</a> <a name="_ENREF_7">Ge, J., S. Prasongtanakij, et al. (2014). "CometChip: a high-throughput 96-well platform for measuring DNA damage in microarrayed human cells." Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE(92): e50607.</a> <a name="_ENREF_8">Gradzka, I. and T. Iwanenko (2005). "A non-radioactive, PFGE-based assay for low levels of DNA double-strand breaks in mammalian cells." DNA repair 4(10): 1129-1139.</a> <a name="_ENREF_9">Haag, J. D., L. C. Hsu, et al. (1996). "Allelic imbalance in mammary carcinomas induced by either 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene or ionizing radiation in rats carrying genes conferring differential susceptibilities to mammary carcinogenesis." Mol Carcinog 17(3): 134-143.</a> <a name="_ENREF_10">Kawashima, Y., N. Yamaguchi, et al. (2017). "Detection of DNA double-strand breaks by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis." Genes to cells : devoted to molecular & cellular mechanisms 22(1): 84-93.</a> <a name="_ENREF_11">Kuhne, M., K. Rothkamm, et al. (2000). "No dose-dependence of DNA double-strand break misrejoining following alpha-particle irradiation." International journal of radiation biology 76(7): 891-900.</a> <a name="_ENREF_12">Kutanzi, K. and O. Kovalchuk (2013). "Exposure to estrogen and ionizing radiation causes epigenetic dysregulation, activation of mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways, and genome instability in the mammary gland of ACI rats." Cancer Biol Ther 14(7): 564-573.</a> <a name="_ENREF_13">Kuzminov, A. (2001). "Single-strand interruptions in replicating chromosomes cause double-strand breaks." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98(15): 8241-8246.</a> <a name="_ENREF_14">Liu, X., Y. He, et al. (2015). "Caspase-3 promotes genetic instability and carcinogenesis." Mol Cell 58(2): 284-296.</a> <a name="_ENREF_15">Lobrich, M., B. Rydberg, et al. (1995). "Repair of x-ray-induced DNA double-strand breaks in specific Not I restriction fragments in human fibroblasts: joining of correct and incorrect ends." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 92(26): 12050-12054.</a> <a name="_ENREF_16">Lorat, Y., C. U. Brunner, et al. (2015). "Nanoscale analysis of clustered DNA damage after high-LET irradiation by quantitative electron microscopy--the heavy burden to repair." DNA repair 28: 93-106.</a> <a name="_ENREF_17">Lorat, Y., S. Timm, et al. (2016). "Clustered double-strand breaks in heterochromatin perturb DNA repair after high linear energy transfer irradiation." Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology 121(1): 154-161.</a> <a name="_ENREF_18">Madugundu, G. S., J. Cadet, et al. (2014). "Hydroxyl-radical-induced oxidation of 5-methylcytosine in isolated and cellular DNA." Nucleic acids research 42(11): 7450-7460.</a> <a name="_ENREF_19">Morishita, M., T. Muramatsu, et al. (2016). "Chromothripsis-like chromosomal rearrangements induced by ionizing radiation using proton microbeam irradiation system." Oncotarget 7(9): 10182-10192.</a> <a name="_ENREF_20">Murnane, J. P. (2012). "Telomere dysfunction and chromosome instability." Mutation research 730(1-2): 28-36.</a> <a name="_ENREF_21">Nikitaki, Z., V. Nikolov, et al. (2016). "Measurement of complex DNA damage induction and repair in human cellular systems after exposure to ionizing radiations of varying linear energy transfer (LET)." Free radical research 50(sup1): S64-S78.</a> <a name="_ENREF_22">OECD (1997). Test No. 486: Unscheduled DNA Synthesis (UDS) Test with Mammalian Liver Cells in vivo.</a> <a name="_ENREF_23">OECD (2016). Test No. 473: In Vitro Mammalian Chromosomal Aberration Test.</a> <a name="_ENREF_24">OECD (2016). Test No. 475: Mammalian Bone Marrow Chromosomal Aberration Test.</a> <a name="_ENREF_25">OECD (2016). Test No. 483: Mammalian Spermatogonial Chromosomal Aberration Test.</a> <a name="_ENREF_26">OECD (2016). Test No. 487: In Vitro Mammalian Cell Micronucleus Test.</a> <a name="_ENREF_27">OECD (2016). Test No. 489: In Vivo Mammalian Alkaline Comet Assay.</a> <a name="_ENREF_28">OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2016). Overview of the set of OECD Genetic Toxicology Test Guidelines and updates performed in 2014–2015. No. 238.</a> <a name="_ENREF_29">Ogawa, Y., T. Kobayashi, et al. (2003). "Radiation-induced oxidative DNA damage, 8-oxoguanine, in human peripheral T cells." International journal of molecular medicine 11(1): 27-32.</a> <a name="_ENREF_30">Ojima, M., N. Ban, et al. (2008). "DNA double-strand breaks induced by very low X-ray doses are largely due to bystander effects." Radiation research 170(3): 365-371.</a> <a name="_ENREF_31">Pernot, E., J. Hall, et al. (2012). "Ionizing radiation biomarkers for potential use in epidemiological studies." Mutation research 751(2): 258-286.</a> <a name="_ENREF_32">Pinto, M., K. M. Prise, et al. (2005). "Evidence for complexity at the nanometer scale of radiation-induced DNA DSBs as a determinant of rejoining kinetics." Radiation research 164(1): 73-85.</a> <a name="_ENREF_33">Ponnaiya, B., M. N. Cornforth, et al. (1997). "Induction of chromosomal instability in human mammary cells by neutrons and gamma rays." Radiation research 147(3): 288-294.</a> <a name="_ENREF_34">Ponnaiya, B., M. N. Cornforth, et al. (1997). "Radiation-induced chromosomal instability in BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice: the difference is as clear as black and white." Radiation research 147(2): 121-125.</a> <a name="_ENREF_35">Ravanat, J. L., J. Breton, et al. (2014). "Radiation-mediated formation of complex damage to DNA: a chemical aspect overview." Br J Radiol 87(1035): 20130715.</a> <a name="_ENREF_36">Regulus, P., B. Duroux, et al. (2007). "Oxidation of the sugar moiety of DNA by ionizing radiation or bleomycin could induce the formation of a cluster DNA lesion." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(35): 14032-14037.</a> <a name="_ENREF_37">Rothkamm, K. and M. Lobrich (2003). "Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in human cells exposed to very low x-ray doses." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(9): 5057-5062.</a> <a name="_ENREF_38">Rydberg, B., B. Cooper, et al. (2005). "Dose-dependent misrejoining of radiation-induced DNA double-strand breaks in human fibroblasts: experimental and theoretical study for high- and low-LET radiation." Radiation research 163(5): 526-534.</a> <a name="_ENREF_39">Sharma, V., L. B. Collins, et al. (2016). "Oxidative stress at low levels can induce clustered DNA lesions leading to NHEJ mediated mutations." Oncotarget 7(18): 25377-25390.</a> <a name="_ENREF_40">Shiraishi, I., N. Shikazono, et al. (2017). "Efficiency of radiation-induced base lesion excision and the order of enzymatic treatment." International journal of radiation biology 93(3): 295-302.</a> <a name="_ENREF_41">Sishc, B. J., C. B. Nelson, et al. (2015). "Telomeres and Telomerase in the Radiation Response: Implications for Instability, Reprograming, and Carcinogenesis." Front Oncol 5: 257.</a> <a name="_ENREF_42">Stenerlow, B., E. Hoglund, et al. (2000). "Rejoining of DNA fragments produced by radiations of different linear energy transfer." International journal of radiation biology 76(4): 549-557.</a> <a name="_ENREF_43">Sykora, P., K. L. Witt, et al. (2018). "Next generation high throughput DNA damage detection platform for genotoxic compound screening." Sci Rep 8(1): 2771.</a> <a name="_ENREF_44">Unger, K., J. Wienberg, et al. (2010). "Novel gene rearrangements in transformed breast cells identified by high-resolution breakpoint analysis of chromosomal aberrations." Endocrine-related cancer 17(1): 87-98.</a> <a name="_ENREF_45">Vispe, S. and M. S. Satoh (2000). "DNA repair patch-mediated double strand DNA break formation in human cells." The Journal of biological chemistry 275(35): 27386-27392.</a> <a name="_ENREF_46">Yang, T.-H., L. M. Craise, et al. (1992). "Chromosomal changes in cultured human epithelial cells transformed by low- and high-LET radiation." Adv Space Res 12(2-3): 127-136.</a> <a name="_ENREF_47">Yang, T. C., K. A. Georgy, et al. (1997). "Initiation of oncogenic transformation in human mammary epithelial cells by charged particles." Radiat Oncol Investig 5(3): 134-138.</a> <a name="_ENREF_48">Yin, Z., D. Menendez, et al. (2012). "RAP80 is critical in maintaining genomic stability and suppressing tumor development." Cancer research 72(19): 5080-5090.</a> <a name="_ENREF_49">Yu, Y., R. Okayasu, et al. (2001). "Elevated breast cancer risk in irradiated BALB/c mice associates with unique functional polymorphism of the Prkdc (DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit) gene." Cancer Res 61(5): 1820-1824.</a> AOPWiki 2016-11-29T18:41:30

2019-05-08T12:28:46

Increased, Oxidative Stress

Molecular

CL:0000255

CL eukaryotic cell

AOPWiki 2016-11-29T18:41:29

2022-02-03T14:20:13

Altered, Meiotic chromosome dynamics

Cellular

The majority of work for this key event has been conducted in mouse oocytes in vitro. The key event is altered chromosome dynamics at metaphase/anaphase transition. Normal chromosome dynamics refers to the proper alignment and separation of the chromosomes at metaphase and anaphase, respectively. Altered chromosome dynamics refers to the incorrect separation of chromosomes involving an abnormal spindle and a defective cell cycle checkpoint [reviewed in Marchetti et al., 2016]. In oocytes, the meiotic cell division is characterized by unique features with respect to the mitotic process, including: (1) the process by which the meiotic spindle is formed; (2) chromosome organization in bivalents (homologous pairs) with sister kinetochores acting as a functional unit; (3) the role of homologous recombination to ensure proper biorientation and stability of the bivalent structure; (4) the direct entry of oocytes into the second meiotic division, following the first anaphase; and, (5) the lack of chromatin decondensation and formation of the nuclear membrane.

Altered chromosome dynamics at metaphase/anaphase is generally assessed by confocal microscopy or enhanced polarizing microscopy on fixed or live cells [Schatten et al., 1985; Shen et al., 2005; Eichenlaub-Ritter et al., 2007; Schuh and Ellenberg, 2007]. Antibodies against centromeric proteins and multicolour fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) are useful approaches to follow chromosome congression: for example, distances between kinetochores and spindle midzone are used to evaluate the dynamics of chromosome congression; interkinetochore distances may be measured to verify a correct biorientation [Shen et al. 2005; Eichenlaub-Ritter et al., 2007; Schuh and Ellenberg, 2007; McGuinness et al., 2009; Lane et al., 2012; Mogessie and Schuh, 2017]. A quantitative description of microtubule dynamics and chromosome movement has also been obtained by time-lapse movies of mitotic cells expressing green fluorescence protein (GFP)-conjugate-tubulin [He and Cimini, 2016; Silkworth et al., 2012].

Studies are available reporting defects of chromosome congression after in vitro exposure of mouse oocytes to spindle poisons [Shen et al., 2005; Eichenlaub-Ritter et al., 2007, Hu et al., 2018]. These studies showed that even exposure to low doses of spindle poisons, such as nocodazole, induced significant spindle abnormalities that manifested as loss of spindle organization, reduced spindle length at both meiosis I and II and congressional failure among other [Shen et al., 2005; Eichenlaub-Ritter et al., 2007]. Studies on altered chromosome dynamics in human oocytes are scarce. Long-term confocal imaging of chromosome dynamics in 50 human oocytes, collected from women undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection showed tri-directional anaphase and other types of chromosomal misalignment in many of them [Haverfield et al., 2017].

CL:0000255

CL eukaryotic cell

Moderate Mixed

Moderate

All life stages

Moderate

Eichenlaub-Ritter U, Winterscheidt U, Vogt E, Shen Y, Tinneberg HR, Sorensen R. 2007. 2-methoxyestradiol induces spindle aberrations, chromosome congression failure, and nondisjunction in mouse oocytes. Biol Reprod 76:784-793. Haverfield J, Dean NL, Noel D, Remillard-Labrosse G, Paradis V, Kadoch IJ, FitzHarris G. 2017. Tri-directional anaphases as a novel chromosome segregation defect in human oocytes. Hum Reprod 32:1293-1303. He B, Cimini D. 2016. Using photoactivable GFP to study microtubule dynamics and chromosome segregation. Methods Mol Biol 1413:15-31. Hu L-L, Zhou X, Zhang H-L, Wu L-L, Tang L-S, Chen L-L, Duan JL. 2018. Exposure to podophyllotoxin inhibits oocyte meiosis by disturbing meiotic spindle formation. Sci Report 8:10145. Lane SI, Yun Y, Jones KT. 2012. Timing of anaphase-promoting complex activation in mouse oocytes is predicted by microtubule-kinetochore attachment but not by bivalent alignment or tension. Development 139:1947-1955. Marchetti F, Massarotti A, Yauk CL, Pacchierotti F, Russo A. 2016. The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for chemical binding to tubulin in oocytes leading to aneuploid offspring. Environ Mol Mutagen 57:87-113. McGuinness BE, Anger M, Kouznetsova A, Gil-Bernabe AM, Helmhart W, Kudo NR, Wuensche A, Taylor S, Hoog C, Novak B, Nasmyth K. 2009. Regulation of APC/C activity in oocytes by a Bub1-dependent spindle assembly checkpoint. Curr Biol 19:369-380. Mogessie B, Schuh M. 2017. Actin protects mammalian eggs against chromosome segregation errors. Science 357, eaal1647. Schuh M, Ellenberg J. 2007. Self-organization of MTOCs replaces centrosome function during acentrosomal spindle assembly in live mouse oocytes. Cell 130:484-498. Shen Y, Betzendahl I, Sun F, Tinneberg HR, Eichenlaub-Ritter U. 2005. Non-invasive method to assess genotoxicity of nocodazole interfering with spindle formation in mammalian oocytes. Reprod Toxicol 19:459-471. Silkworth WT, Nardi IK, Paul R, Mogilner A, Cimini D (2012) Timing of centrosome separation is important for accurate chromosome segregation. Mol Cell Biol 23:401-411. AOPWiki 2016-11-29T18:41:26

2019-05-27T14:17:48

Increase, Oocyte apoptosis

Cellular

AOPWiki 2020-04-30T16:41:18

2020-04-30T16:41:18

Decreased spermatogenesis

Organ

AOPWiki 2020-07-13T04:32:49

2021-02-09T08:36:06

impaired, Fertility

Individual

Biological state capability to produce offspring Biological compartments System General role in biology Fertility is the capacity to conceive or induce conception. Impairment of fertility represents disorders of male or female reproductive functions or capacity.

As a measure, fertility rate, is the number of offspring born per mating pair, individual or population.

High

Adult, reproductively mature

High High High

AOPWiki 2016-11-29T18:41:24

2016-12-02T09:21:49

Decrease of egg production and cummulative fecundity

Individual

AOPWiki 2019-10-03T11:13:26

2019-10-03T11:13:26

Decreased, Population size

Population

AOPWiki 2016-11-29T18:41:28

2016-12-03T16:37:52

Increase, Reactive oxygen species

Increase, ROS

Molecular

AOPWiki 2017-04-15T16:05:45

2019-03-19T09:41:07

Decrease, Reproduction

Individual

AOPWiki 2021-04-11T08:21:37

2021-04-11T17:38:35

Cell cycle, disrupted

Cellular

The disruption of the cell cycle leads to a decrease in cell number. The cell cycle consists of G1, S, G2, M, and G0 phases. The cell cycle regulation is disrupted by the cell cycle arrest in certain cell cycle phases. The histone gene expression is regulated in cell cycle phases [Heintz et al., 1983].

The percentage of cells at G1, G0, S, and G2/M phases can be detected by flow cytometry  [Li et al., 2013]. Cell cycle distribution was analyzed by fluorescence-activated cell sorter (FACS) analysis with a Partec PAS-II sorter [Zupkovitz et al., 2010]. The four cell-cycle phases in living cells can be measured with four-color fluorescent proteins using live-cell imaging [Bajar et al., 2016]. The incorporation of [3H]deoxycytidine or [3H]thymidine into cell DNA during the S phase can be monitored as DNA synthesis [Heintz et al., 1982].

The histone gene expression alters in each phase of the cell cycle in human HeLa cells (Homo sapiens) [Heintz et al., 1982].

UBERON:0000062

UBERON organ

CL:0000000

CL cell

High Unspecific

Moderate

Not Otherwise Specified

High High

Bajar, B.T. et al. (2016), "Fluorescent indicators for simultaneous reporting of all four cell cycle phases", Nat Methods 13:993-996  Heintz, N. et al. (1983), "Regulation of human histone gene expression: Kinetics of accumulation and changes in the rate of synthesis and in the half-lives of individual histone mRNAs during the HeLa cell cycle", Molecular and Cellular Biology 3:539-550 Li, Q. et al. (2013), "Glyphosate and AMPA inhibit cancer cell growth through inhibiting intracellular glycine synthesis", Drug Des Devel Ther 7:635-643 AOPWiki 2018-01-21T20:59:13

2021-06-30T02:56:39

Decrease, Oogenesis

Organ

AOPWiki 2017-04-15T16:20:50

2020-04-30T16:41:53

<upstream-id>f561c867-7ea1-4a15-8d58-1bc54223f32c</upstream-id> <downstream-id>9406242d-4b4c-477b-b38c-fe67f529cc39</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430abd4e80> AOPWiki 2021-05-12T08:39:58

2021-05-12T08:39:58

<upstream-id>f561c867-7ea1-4a15-8d58-1bc54223f32c</upstream-id> <downstream-id>188fb077-afcb-4744-9617-cb618b036b3c</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430abfc2f0> AOPWiki 2021-05-12T09:16:47

2021-05-12T09:16:47

<upstream-id>f561c867-7ea1-4a15-8d58-1bc54223f32c</upstream-id> <downstream-id>9b6808d9-2d0a-4c02-81a8-932b6c3306af</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430ac27540> AOPWiki 2021-05-14T04:49:10

2021-05-14T04:49:10

<upstream-id>9b6808d9-2d0a-4c02-81a8-932b6c3306af</upstream-id> <downstream-id>50d872b6-de6d-4960-83e4-a8b25b59dea1</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430ac46738> AOPWiki 2021-05-18T07:30:05

2021-05-18T07:30:05

<upstream-id>f561c867-7ea1-4a15-8d58-1bc54223f32c</upstream-id> <downstream-id>687d7fd6-39a0-4242-b089-bc535e0d5163</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430ac64878> AOPWiki 2021-05-12T08:40:28

2021-05-12T08:40:28

<upstream-id>f561c867-7ea1-4a15-8d58-1bc54223f32c</upstream-id> <downstream-id>b1306ec7-5141-41be-a5dc-ba4e2d3e9fc3</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430acb6bc8> AOPWiki 2021-05-14T04:46:24

2021-05-14T04:46:24

<upstream-id>9406242d-4b4c-477b-b38c-fe67f529cc39</upstream-id> <downstream-id>188fb077-afcb-4744-9617-cb618b036b3c</downstream-id>

<table class="table table-bordered table-fullwidth"> <thead> <tr> <th>Modulating Factor (MF)</th> <th>MF Specification</th> <th>Effect(s) on the KER</th> <th>Reference(s)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430ace5658> AOPWiki 2016-11-29T18:41:36

2023-07-31T15:55:25

<upstream-id>f561c867-7ea1-4a15-8d58-1bc54223f32c</upstream-id> <downstream-id>5c9ed3da-ee9d-4f9d-ab1e-183fc4b9e004</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430ad1e048> AOPWiki 2021-05-14T04:46:54

2021-05-14T04:46:54

<upstream-id>687d7fd6-39a0-4242-b089-bc535e0d5163</upstream-id> <downstream-id>b1306ec7-5141-41be-a5dc-ba4e2d3e9fc3</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430ad5ac50> AOPWiki 2021-05-12T08:41:39

2021-05-12T08:41:39

<upstream-id>f561c867-7ea1-4a15-8d58-1bc54223f32c</upstream-id> <downstream-id>279d172e-a92c-4eeb-ada8-b989cdd4a582</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430add5680> AOPWiki 2021-05-14T04:47:23

2021-05-14T04:47:23

<upstream-id>687d7fd6-39a0-4242-b089-bc535e0d5163</upstream-id> <downstream-id>9b6808d9-2d0a-4c02-81a8-932b6c3306af</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430ae040c0> AOPWiki 2021-05-12T08:42:21

2021-05-12T08:42:21

<upstream-id>f561c867-7ea1-4a15-8d58-1bc54223f32c</upstream-id> <downstream-id>50d872b6-de6d-4960-83e4-a8b25b59dea1</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430ae4e080> AOPWiki 2021-05-14T04:48:24

2021-05-14T04:48:24

<upstream-id>f561c867-7ea1-4a15-8d58-1bc54223f32c</upstream-id> <downstream-id>08f0ea7d-9014-466d-9e4a-f00960de6d44</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430ae896f8> AOPWiki 2021-05-14T04:48:54

2021-05-14T04:48:54

<upstream-id>b1306ec7-5141-41be-a5dc-ba4e2d3e9fc3</upstream-id> <downstream-id>9b6808d9-2d0a-4c02-81a8-932b6c3306af</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430aed8ff0> AOPWiki 2021-05-12T08:42:57

2021-05-12T08:42:57

<upstream-id>b1306ec7-5141-41be-a5dc-ba4e2d3e9fc3</upstream-id> <downstream-id>5c9ed3da-ee9d-4f9d-ab1e-183fc4b9e004</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430aefd698> AOPWiki 2021-05-12T08:43:31

2021-05-12T08:43:31

<upstream-id>188fb077-afcb-4744-9617-cb618b036b3c</upstream-id> <downstream-id>9b6808d9-2d0a-4c02-81a8-932b6c3306af</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430af1f2c0> AOPWiki 2021-05-12T08:44:32

2021-05-12T08:44:32

<upstream-id>687d7fd6-39a0-4242-b089-bc535e0d5163</upstream-id> <downstream-id>8fb228b2-18a0-488a-a7c6-3d8f22ff973b</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430af34788> AOPWiki 2022-10-25T03:56:10

2022-10-25T03:56:10

<upstream-id>8fb228b2-18a0-488a-a7c6-3d8f22ff973b</upstream-id> <downstream-id>b1306ec7-5141-41be-a5dc-ba4e2d3e9fc3</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430af5e060> AOPWiki 2022-10-25T03:56:40

2022-10-25T03:56:40

<upstream-id>9b6808d9-2d0a-4c02-81a8-932b6c3306af</upstream-id> <downstream-id>4c2a1a47-7356-4b04-960b-5c2213dc4113</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430af77c90> AOPWiki 2020-04-30T16:44:14

2020-04-30T16:44:14

<upstream-id>9b6808d9-2d0a-4c02-81a8-932b6c3306af</upstream-id> <downstream-id>279d172e-a92c-4eeb-ada8-b989cdd4a582</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430af8dbf8> AOPWiki 2021-05-12T08:46:27

2021-05-12T08:46:27

<upstream-id>5c9ed3da-ee9d-4f9d-ab1e-183fc4b9e004</upstream-id> <downstream-id>279d172e-a92c-4eeb-ada8-b989cdd4a582</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430afad408> AOPWiki 2020-07-13T04:42:08

2020-07-13T04:42:08

<upstream-id>5c9ed3da-ee9d-4f9d-ab1e-183fc4b9e004</upstream-id> <downstream-id>50d872b6-de6d-4960-83e4-a8b25b59dea1</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430afd8ba8> AOPWiki 2021-05-12T08:47:18

2021-05-12T08:47:18

<upstream-id>279d172e-a92c-4eeb-ada8-b989cdd4a582</upstream-id> <downstream-id>50d872b6-de6d-4960-83e4-a8b25b59dea1</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430affab40> AOPWiki 2021-05-12T08:47:00

2021-05-12T08:47:00

<upstream-id>50d872b6-de6d-4960-83e4-a8b25b59dea1</upstream-id> <downstream-id>08f0ea7d-9014-466d-9e4a-f00960de6d44</downstream-id>

#<Reference::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy:0x00007b430b01e658> AOPWiki 2021-05-12T08:48:02

2021-05-12T08:48:02

Deposition of ionizing energy leads to population decline via impaired meiosis

Allie Always

Erica Maremonti 1, Deborah H. Oughton 1, Elizabeth Dufourcq-Sekatcheff 2, Sandrine Frelon 2, Rémi Guédon 2, Catherine Lecomte-Pradines 2, Lisa Magdalena Rossbach 1, Dag Anders Brede 1 1 Centre for Environmental Radioactivity (CERAD), Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural ResourceManagement (MINA), Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), 1432 Ås, Norway 2 Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), PRP-ENV, SERIS, Laboratoire d'ECOtoxicologie des radionucléides (LECO), Cadarache, France

2.0

Despite the tolerance demonstrated under exposure to high acute doses (> 1 kGy) of ionizing radiation in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, adverse outcome at the reproductive level have been observed under exposure of early stages of larval development to low-medium chronic doses (≥ 2.8 Gy). L1-L4 larval stages were shown to be the most radiosensitive stages of development due to adverse effects on gamete production. Specifically, significant sperm reduction and dysregulation of genes related to sperm meiosis and maturation were identified as the main key events (KE1, KE2) causing reduced number of progeny (AO1). Adverse effects of ionizing radiation on proliferative cells were also shown by enhanced germ cell apoptosis (KE3, KE4) in F0 nematodes and significant DNA damage in embryonic cells (F1) of irradiated nematodes, which was corroborated by the dysregulation of genes related to cell-cycle checkpoints, DNA repair, embryonic and post-embryonic development. Increased ROS levels (MIE2) and AODs activation were measured in vivo and by gene expression analysis after chronic irradiation of F0 nematodes. This was not accompanied by any adverse effect on somatic cell viability or any visible phenotypical effect, indicating tolerance of somatic tissue compared to the observed adverse effects shown on the germ cells. The observed redox imbalance suggested a significant contribution of indirect effects, including oxidative damage to DNA (MIE3), and represented the molecular initiating event derived from ionization and excitation of atoms and molecules (MIE1) after chronic irradiation.

adjacent

High

High adjacent

High

High adjacent

High

High adjacent

Moderate

Moderate adjacent

High

High adjacent

Moderate

Moderate adjacent

High

High adjacent

Moderate

Moderate adjacent

Low

Moderate adjacent

Low

Low adjacent

Low

Moderate adjacent

Moderate

High adjacent

High

High adjacent

High

High adjacent

High

High adjacent

High

High non-adjacent

High

High non-adjacent

Moderate

Moderate non-adjacent

Moderate

Moderate non-adjacent

Moderate

Moderate non-adjacent

Moderate

Moderate non-adjacent

Moderate

Moderate non-adjacent

Moderate

Moderate non-adjacent

Moderate

High Hermaphrodite

High

Larval development

High

Hartman, P. S., & Herman, R. K. (1982). Radiation-sensitive mutants of Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics, 102(2), 159-178. Hodgkin, J., & Barnes, T. M. (1991). More is not better: brood size and population growth in a self-fertilizing nematode. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 246(1315), 19-24. Shakes, D. C., Wu, J. C., Sadler, P. L., LaPrade, K., Moore, L. L., Noritake, A., & Chu, D. S. (2009). Spermatogenesis-specific features of the meiotic program in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Genet, 5(8), e1000611. Reisz, J. A., Bansal, N., Qian, J., Zhao, W., & Furdui, C. M. (2014). Effects of ionizing radiation on biological molecules—mechanisms of damage and emerging methods of detection. Antioxidants & redox signaling, 21(2), 260-292. Buisset-Goussen, A., Goussen, B., Della-Vedova, C., Galas, S., Adam-Guillermin, C., & Lecomte-Pradines, C. (2014). Effects of chronic gamma irradiation: a multigenerational study using Caenorhabditis elegans. Journal of environmental radioactivity, 137, 190-197. Engert, C. G., Droste, R., van Oudenaarden, A., & Horvitz, H. R. (2018). A Caenorhabditis elegans protein with a PRDM9-like SET domain localizes to chromatin-associated foci and promotes spermatocyte gene expression, sperm production and fertility. PLoS genetics, 14(4), e1007295. Maremonti, E., Eide, D. M., Oughton, D. H., Salbu, B., Grammes, F., Kassaye, Y. A., ... & Brede, D. A. (2019). Gamma radiation induces life stage-dependent reprotoxicity in Caenorhabditis elegans via impairment of spermatogenesis. Science of the Total Environment, 695, 133835. Maremonti, E., Eide, D. M., Rossbach, L. M., Lind, O. C., Salbu, B., & Brede, D. A. (2020). In vivo assessment of reactive oxygen species production and oxidative stress effects induced by chronic exposure to gamma radiation in Caenorhabditis elegans. Free radical biology and medicine, 152, 583-596. Guédon, R., Maremonti, E., Armant, O., Galas, S., Brede, D. A., & Lecomte-Pradines, C. (2021). A systems biology analysis of reproductive toxicity effects induced by multigenerational exposure to ionizing radiation in C. elegans. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 225, 112793. AOPWiki 2021-05-11T05:06:20

2023-09-25T16:27:07