Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28795608›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of radiation biology2018

Focus small to find big - the microbeam story.

Jinhua Wu, Tom K Hei

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of radiation biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jinhua Wua Center for Radiological Research, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University , New York , NY , USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8511-3949
Tom K Heia Center for Radiological Research, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University , New York , NY , USA.
Columbia University · US

Funding

THE FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS OF BYSTANDER RESPONSESP01CA049062 · NCI · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI HEI, TOM K. · 1990 to 2014
$21.9M
TR&D 3P41EB002033 · NIBIB · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI BRENNER, DAVID JONATHAN · 2003 to 2018
$17.0M
Cytoplasmic Damage and GenotoxicityR01ES012888 · NIEHS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI HEI, TOM K. · 2004 to 2016
$3.9M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA049062NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB002033NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES012888
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEven though the first ultraviolet microbeam was described by S. Tschachotin back in 1912, the development of sophisticated micro-irradiation facilities only began to flourish in the late 1980s. In this article, we highlight significant microbeam experiments, describe the latest microbeam irradiator configurations and critical discoveries made by using the microbeam apparatus. MATERIALS AND

methodsModern radiological microbeams facilities are capable of producing a beam size of a few micrometers, or even tens of nanometers in size, and can deposit radiation with high precision within a cellular target. In the past three decades, a variety of microbeams has been developed to deliver a range of radiations including charged particles, X-rays, and electrons. Despite the original intention for their development to measure the effects of a single radiation track, the ability to target radiation with microbeams at sub-cellular targets has been extensively used to investigate radiation-induced biological responses within cells.

resultsStudies conducted using microbeams to target specific cells in a tissue have elucidated bystander responses, and further studies have shown reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS) play critical roles in the process. The radiation-induced abscopal effect, which has a profound impact on cancer radiotherapy, further reaffirmed the importance of bystander effects. Finally, by targeting sub-cellular compartments with a microbeam, we have reported cytoplasmic-specific biological responses. Despite the common dogma that nuclear DNA is the primary target for radiation-induced cell death and carcinogenesis, studies conducted using microbeam suggested that targeted cytoplasmic irradiation induces mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular stress, and genomic instability. A more recent development in microbeam technology includes application of mouse models to visualize in vivo DNA double-strand breaks.

conclusionsMicrobeams are making important contributions towards our understanding of radiation responses in cells and tissue models.

Indexed as

AnimalsBystander EffectCytoplasmDNA RepairHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansRadiobiologyRadiotherapyRisk Assessmentabscopal effectbystander effectcytoplasmic irradiationmicrobeam irradiatorRadiation

Identifiers

PMID28795608
PMCPMC6092239
OpenAlexW2745253093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.