7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Evidence for beneficial low level radiation effects and radiation hormesis

      The British Journal of Radiology
      British Institute of Radiology

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Low doses in the mGy range cause a dual effect on cellular DNA. One is a relatively low probability of DNA damage per energy deposition event and increases in proportion to the dose. At background exposures this damage to DNA is orders of magnitude lower than that from endogenous sources, such as reactive oxygen species. The other effect at comparable doses is adaptive protection against DNA damage from many, mainly endogenous, sources, depending on cell type, species and metabolism. Adaptive protection causes DNA damage prevention and repair and immune stimulation. It develops with a delay of hours, may last for days to months, decreases steadily at doses above about 100 mGy to 200 mGy and is not observed any more after acute exposures of more than about 500 mGy. Radiation-induced apoptosis and terminal cell differentiation also occur at higher doses and add to protection by reducing genomic instability and the number of mutated cells in tissues. At low doses reduction of damage from endogenous sources by adaptive protection maybe equal to or outweigh radiogenic damage induction. Thus, the linear-no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis for cancer risk is scientifically unfounded and appears to be invalid in favour of a threshold or hormesis. This is consistent with data both from animal studies and human epidemiological observations on low-dose induced cancer. The LNT hypothesis should be abandoned and be replaced by a hypothesis that is scientifically justified and causes less unreasonable fear and unnecessary expenditure.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Toxicology rethinks its central belief.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The adaptive response in radiobiology: evolving insights and implications.

            Lisa Wolff (1998)
            The first of the regularly reproducible experiments to show that very low doses of ionizing radiation, like very low doses of chemical agents, could induce mechanisms whereby cells become better fit to cope with subsequent exposures to high doses were carried out on the induction of chromosome aberrations in cultures of human lymphocytes. If cells that had been exposed to a very low dose (1 cGy) of X rays were subsequently exposed to a relatively high dose (1 Gy), approximately half as many chromosome breaks were induced. Subsequent experiments showed that this adaptive response to low doses requires a certain minimal dose before it becomes active; occurs only within a relatively small window of dose; is dose-rate dependent; and depends on the genetic constitution of the people or animals exposed, with some being unresponsive. It was further shown that the response to the low-dose preexposure was not instantaneous but took approximately 4 to 6 hr to become fully active, and could be prevented if during this period protein synthesis was inhibited, i.e., a necessary protein (enzyme) was being induced. In fact, subsequent experiments with two-dimensional gel electrophoresis showed new proteins in cells irradiated with 1 to 2 cGy. The adaptation induced by low doses of radiation was therefore attributed to the induction of a novel efficient chromosome break repair mechanism that if active at the time of challenge with high doses would lead to less residual damage. This hypothesis was strengthened by a series of experiments in which it was found that inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase, an enzyme implicated in DNA strand break rejoining, could prevent the adaptive response. Although the phenomenon is well established in cellular systems, it is still problematical as to whether or not it will have any utility in establishing risks of ionizing radiation to humans. Newer experiments have now been carried out on the mechanisms underlying the effect and whether or not the effect can manifest itself as a decrease in the number of induced cancers and radiation-induced mortality. Experiments with restriction enzymes now indicate that double-strand breaks in DNA can be triggering events in adaptation. In addition, preliminary experiments on the survival of whole-body irradiated mice have shown that multiple exposures to low adapting doses can have profound effects on survival, and other experiments have shown that adaptation can affect the induction of thymic lymphoma in irradiated mice. It therefore appears that the initial experiments behind the adaptive response have led to a vigorous worldwide effort to understand the basic mechanisms behind it. This effort is stimulated both by a desire to understand the basic cell biology behind the response and a desire to see if indeed this phenomenon affects the estimation of risks of low-level radiation exposure. Images Figure 1 Figure 2
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Reactive oxygen species in cell responses to toxic agents.

              This review first summarizes experimental data on biological effects of different concentrations of ROS in mammalian cells and on their potential role in modifying cell responses to toxic agents. It then attempts to link the role of steadily produced metabolic ROS at various concentrations in mammalian cells to that of environmentally derived ROS bursts from exposure to ionizing radiation. The ROS from both sources are known to both cause biological damage and change cellular signaling, depending on their concentration at a given time. At low concentrations signaling effects of ROS appear to protect cellular survival and dominate over damage, and the reverse occurs at high ROS concentrations. Background radiation generates suprabasal ROS bursts along charged particle tracks several times a year in each nanogram of tissue, i.e., average mass of a mammalian cell. For instance, a burst of about 200 ROS occurs within less than a microsecond from low-LET irradiation such as X-rays along the track of a Compton electron (about 6 keV, ranging about 1 microm). One such track per nanogram tissue gives about 1 mGy to this mass. The number of instantaneous ROS per burst along the track of a 4-meV alpha-particle in 1 ng tissue reaches some 70000. The sizes, types and sites of these bursts, and the time intervals between them directly in and around cells appear essential for understanding low-dose and low dose-rate effects on top of effects from endogenous ROS. At background and low-dose radiation exposure, a major role of ROS bursts along particle tracks focuses on ROS-induced apoptosis of damage-carrying cells, and also on prevention and removal of DNA damage from endogenous sources by way of temporarily protective, i.e., adaptive, cellular responses. A conclusion is to consider low-dose radiation exposure as a provider of physiological mechanisms for tissue homoeostasis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                The British Journal of Radiology
                BJR
                British Institute of Radiology
                0007-1285
                1748-880X
                January 2005
                January 2005
                : 78
                : 925
                : 3-7
                Article
                10.1259/bjr/63353075
                15673519
                ab0339d7-5c62-408c-852d-047a598b80c9
                © 2005
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article