Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28541506›Full record

ArticleJournal of radiation research2017

Differences in responses to X-ray exposure between osteoclast and osteoblast cells.

Jian Zhang, Ziyang Wang, Anqing Wu, Jing Nie, Hailong Pei, Wentao Hu, Bing Wang, Peng Shang, Bingyan Li, Guangming Zhou

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of radiation research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Influence of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on bone metabolism in patients with neoplasm.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2021
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jian ZhangSchool of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Medical College of Soochow University, 199 Renai Road, Suzhou 215123, China.
Ziyang WangSchool of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Medical College of Soochow University, 199 Renai Road, Suzhou 215123, China.
Anqing WuSchool of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Medical College of Soochow University, 199 Renai Road, Suzhou 215123, China.
Jing NieSchool of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Medical College of Soochow University, 199 Renai Road, Suzhou 215123, China.
Hailong PeiSchool of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Medical College of Soochow University, 199 Renai Road, Suzhou 215123, China.
Wentao HuSchool of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Medical College of Soochow University, 199 Renai Road, Suzhou 215123, China.
Bing WangDepartment of Radiation Effects Research, National Institute of Radiological Sciences, National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, Anagawa 4-9-1, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-555, Japan.
Peng ShangSchool of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Medical College of Soochow University, 199 Renai Road, Suzhou 215123, China.
Bingyan LiDepartment of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Medical College of Soochow University, 199 Renai Road, Suzhou 215123, China.
Guangming ZhouSchool of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Medical College of Soochow University, 199 Renai Road, Suzhou 215123, China.
Soochow University · CNNational Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiation-induced bone loss is a potential health concern for cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. Enhanced bone resorption by osteoclasts and decreased bone formation by osteoblasts were thought to be the main reasons. In this study, we showed that both pre-differentiating and differentiating osteoclasts were relatively sensitive to X-rays compared with osteoblasts. X-rays decreased cell viability to a greater degree in RAW264.7 cells and in differentiating cells than than in osteoblastic MC3T3-E1 cells. X-rays at up to 8 Gy had little effects on osteoblast mineralization. In contrast, X-rays at 1 Gy induced enhanced osteoclastogenesis by enhanced cell fusion, but had no effects on bone resorption. A higher dose of X-rays at 8 Gy, however, had an inhibitory effect on bone resorption. In addition, actin ring formation was disrupted by 8 Gy of X-rays and reorganized into clusters. An increased activity of Caspase 3 was found after X-ray exposure. Actin disorganization and increased apoptosis may be the potential effects of X-rays at high doses, by inhibiting osteoclast differentiation. Taken together, our data indicate high radiosensitivity of osteoclasts. X-ray irradiation at relatively low doses can activate osteoclastogenesis, but not osteogenic differentiation. The radiosensitive osteoclasts are the potentially responsive cells for X-ray-induced bone loss.

Indexed as

AnimalsBone ResorptionCalcification, PhysiologicCell DifferentiationCell SurvivalCytoskeletonMiceOsteoblastsOsteoclastsRAW 264.7 CellsReactive Oxygen SpeciesX-RaysReactive Oxygen Speciesdifferentiationionizing radiationosteoblastsosteoclasts

Identifiers

PMID28541506
PMCPMC5710662
OpenAlexW2618654495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.