ReviewJournal of biosciences2015
Microirradiation techniques in radiobiological research.
Review in Journal of biosciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recruitment Kinetics of XRCC1 and RNF8 Following MeV Proton and α-Particle Micro-Irradiation.Biology · 2023Article
- Differential Recruitment of DNA Repair Proteins KU70/80 and RAD51 upon Microbeam Irradiation with α-Particles.Biology · 2022Article
- Genetic Material Manipulation and Modification by Optical Trapping and Nanosurgery-A Perspective.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Review
- Ultra-soft X-ray system for imaging the early cellular responses to X-ray induced DNA damage.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- Optical Tweezers: Phototoxicity and Thermal Stress in Cells and Biomolecules.Micromachines · 2019Review
- Iodine nanoparticles enhance radiotherapy of intracerebral human glioma in mice and increase efficacy of chemotherapy.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Neutrophil accumulation and NET release contribute to thrombosis in HIT.JCI insight · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this work is to review the uses of laser microirradiation and ion microbeam techniques within the scope of radiobiological research. Laser microirradiation techniques can be used for many different purposes. In a specific condition, through the use of pulsed lasers, cell lysis can be produced for subsequent separation of different analytes. Microsurgery allows for the identification and isolation of tissue sections, single cells and subcellular components, using different types of lasers. The generation of different types of DNA damage, via this type of microirradiation, allows for the investigation of DNA dynamics. Ion microbeams are important tools in radiobiological research. There are only a limited number of facilities worldwide where radiobiological experiments can be performed. In the beginning, research was mostly focused on the bystander effect. Nowadays, with more sophisticated molecular and cellular biological techniques, ion microirradiation is used to unravel molecular processes in the field of radiobiology. These include DNA repair protein kinetics or chromatin modifications at the site of DNA damage. With the increasing relevance of charged particles in tumour therapy and new concepts on how to generate them, ion microbeam facilities are able to address unresolved questions concerning particle tumour therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26333407What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.