Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24896095›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Neutron exposures in human cells: bystander effect and relative biological effectiveness.

Isheeta Seth, Jeffrey L Schwartz, Robert D Stewart, Robert Emery, Michael C Joiner, James D Tucker

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A DNA Damage-Repair Dynamic Model for HRS/IRR Effects ofDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Isheeta SethDepartment of Biological Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.
Jeffrey L SchwartzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Robert D StewartDepartment of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Robert EmeryDepartment of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Michael C JoinerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.
James D TuckerDepartment of Biological Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.
University of Washington · USWayne State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bystander effects have been observed repeatedly in mammalian cells following photon and alpha particle irradiation. However, few studies have been performed to investigate bystander effects arising from neutron irradiation. Here we asked whether neutrons also induce a bystander effect in two normal human lymphoblastoid cell lines. These cells were exposed to fast neutrons produced by targeting a near-monoenergetic 50.5 MeV proton beam at a Be target (17 MeV average neutron energy), and irradiated-cell conditioned media (ICCM) was transferred to unirradiated cells. The cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay was used to quantify genetic damage in radiation-naïve cells exposed to ICCM from cultures that received 0 (control), 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3 or 4 Gy neutrons. Cells grown in ICCM from irradiated cells showed no significant increase in the frequencies of micronuclei or nucleoplasmic bridges compared to cells grown in ICCM from sham irradiated cells for either cell line. However, the neutron beam has a photon dose-contamination of 5%, which may modulate a neutron-induced bystander effect. To determine whether these low doses of contaminating photons can induce a bystander effect, cells were irradiated with cobalt-60 at doses equivalent to the percent contamination for each neutron dose. No significant increase in the frequencies of micronuclei or bridges was observed at these doses of photons for either cell line when cultured in ICCM. As expected, high doses of photons induced a clear bystander effect in both cell lines for micronuclei and bridges (p<0.0001). These data indicate that neutrons do not induce a bystander effect in these cells. Finally, neutrons had a relative biological effectiveness of 2.0 ± 0.13 for micronuclei and 5.8 ± 2.9 for bridges compared to cobalt-60. These results may be relevant to radiation therapy with fast neutrons and for regulatory agencies setting standards for neutron radiation protection and safety.

Indexed as

NeutronsBystander EffectCell LineCell Nucleus DivisionCobalt RadioisotopesDNA DamageHumansMicronuclei, Chromosome-DefectiveMicronucleus TestsPhotonsRelative Biological EffectivenessCobalt Radioisotopes

Identifiers

PMID24896095
PMCPMC4045982
OpenAlexW1971201413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.