ArticlePloS one2017
Ionizing radiation response of primary normal human lens epithelial cells.
Article in PloS one, 2017. 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, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of dose rate on responses of human lens epithelial cells to ionizing irradiation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- An investigation of early radiation damage in rainbow trout eye-lenses.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2021Article
- An update on effects of ionizing radiation exposure on the eye.The British journal of radiology · 2020Review
- Radioprotective role of uric acid: evidence from studies in Drosophila and human dermal fibroblast cells.Molecular biology reports · 2020Article
- Inverse dose-rate effect of ionising radiation on residual 53BP1 foci in the eye lens.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- DNA damage induction during localized chronic exposure to an insoluble radioactive microparticle.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Risk of radiation-induced lens opacities among surgeons and interventional medical staff.Radiological physics and technology · 2019Article
- A biologically based mathematical model for spontaneous and ionizing radiation cataractogenesis.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whilst the cataractogenic potential of ionizing radiation has been known for over the past 120 years, little is known about radiation responses of lens cells. Our previous work was the first to evaluate the radiosensitivity of lens cells with the clonogenic assay, documenting that the survival of HLEC1 human lens epithelial cells is comparable to that of WI-38 human lung fibroblasts. Moreover, HLEC1 cells were found to contain subsets where irradiation stimulates proliferation or facilitates formation of abortive colonies with fewer cells than human fibroblasts. This study aims to gain insights into these mechanisms. Irradiation of HLEC1 cells with 10% survival dose caused a growth delay but did not reduce viability. HLEC1 cells at high cumulative population doubling level were more susceptible to radiogenic premature senescence than WI-38 cells. Concerning p53 binding protein 1 (53BP1) foci, HLEC1 cells harbored less spontaneous foci but more radiogenic foci than in WI-38 cells, and the focus number returned to spontaneous levels within 48 h postirradiation both in HLEC1 and WI-38. The chemical inhibition of DNA repair kinases ataxia telangiectasia mutated, DNA-dependent protein kinase or both delayed and attenuated the appearance and disappearance of radiogenic 53BP1 foci, increased radiogenic premature senescence and enhanced clonogenic inactivation. The DNA microarray analysis suggested both radiogenic stimulation and inhibition of cell proliferation. Treatment with conditioned medium from irradiated cells did not change growth and the plating efficiency of nonirradiated cells. These results partially explain mechanisms of our previous observations, such that unrepaired or incompletely repaired DNA damage causes a growth delay in a subset of HLEC1 cells without changing viability through induction of premature senescence, thereby leading to clonogenic inactivation, but that growth is stimulated in another subset via as yet unidentified mechanisms, warranting further studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.