Radhia M’kacher

PURPOSE: The dicentric chromosome (dicentric) assay is the international gold-standard method for biological dosimetry and classification of genotoxic agents. The introduction of telomere and centromere (TC) staining offers the potential to render dicentric scoring more efficient and robust. In this study, we improved the detection of dicentrics and all unstable chromosomal aberrations (CA) leading to a significant reevaluation of the dose-effect curve and developed an automated approach following TC staining. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Blood samples from 16 healthy donors were exposed to (137)Cs at 8 doses from 0.1 to 6Gy. CA were manually and automatically scored following uniform (Giemsa) or TC staining. The detection of centromeric regions and telomeric sequences using PNA probes allowed the detection of all unstable CA: dicentrics, centric and acentric rings, and all acentric fragments (with 2, 4 or no telomeres) leading to the precise quantification of estimated double strand breaks (DSB). RESULTS: Manual scoring following TC staining revealed a significantly higher frequency of dicentrics (p<10(-3)) (up to 30%) and estimated DSB (p<10(-4)) compared to uniform staining due to improved detection of dicentrics with centromeres juxtaposed with other centromeres or telomeres. This improvement permitted the development of the software, TCScore, that detected 95% of manually scored dicentrics compared to 50% for the best currently available software (DCScore™). CONCLUSION: The use of TC staining has permitted a reevaluation of the dose-response curve and the highly efficient automation of the scoring process, marking a new step in the management and follow-up of populations exposed to genotoxic agents including ionizing radiation.

PURPOSE: RENEB, 'Realising the European Network of Biodosimetry and Physical Retrospective Dosimetry,' is a network for research and emergency response mutual assistance in biodosimetry within the EU. Within this extremely active network, a number of new dosimetry methods have recently been proposed or developed. There is a requirement to test and/or validate these candidate techniques and inter-comparison exercises are a well-established method for such validation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors present details of inter-comparisons of four such new methods: dicentric chromosome analysis including telomere and centromere staining; the gene expression assay carried out in whole blood; Raman spectroscopy on blood lymphocytes, and detection of radiation-induced thermoluminescent signals in glass screens taken from mobile phones. RESULTS: In general the results show good agreement between the laboratories and methods within the expected levels of uncertainty, and thus demonstrate that there is a lot of potential for each of the candidate techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Further work is required before the new methods can be included within the suite of reliable dosimetry methods for use by RENEB partners and others in routine and emergency response scenarios.

UNLABELLED: To determine the cytogenetic and genotoxic risk associated with therapeutic exposure to 131I (3.7 GBq) in 50 patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma, we estimated the dosimetric index that reflects the dose to the circulating lymphocytes on Day 4 and at several time intervals after exposure over a period of 2 yr. METHODS: Chromosomal aberrations were scored in peripheral lymphocytes obtained before and then 4 days, 3 mo, 6 mo, 1 yr and 2 yr after the first administration of 3.7 GBq 131I according to two methods: conventional cytogenetics and chromosome 4 painting. RESULTS: The dosimetric index was 0.52 Gy on Day 4, 0.49 Gy at 3 mo, 0.45 Gy at 6 mo, 0.44 Gy at 1 yr and 0.42 Gy at 2 yr by conventional cytogenetics and 0.47 Gy on Day 4, 0.45 Gy at 3 mo, 0.44 Gy at 6 mo, 0.43 Gy at 1 yr and 0.42 Gy at 2 yr by chromosome 4 painting. We found a decrease in the frequency of chromosomal aberrations between Day 4 and 3 mo after exposure. This may be due to the decrease of lymphocyte counts shortly after 131I administration, which will recover later on. In contrast, the number of anomalies remained constant starting 3 mo after 131I administration. CONCLUSION: These techniques permit retrospective biological dosimetry for up to 2 yr after therapeutic exposure to 131I.