ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2019
Optimizing the response, precision, and cost of a DNA double-strand break dosimeter.
Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- DNA dosimeter measurements of beam profile using a novel simultaneous processing technique.Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine · 2020Article
- Quantification of DNA double-strand breaks using Geant4-DNA.Medical physics · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We developed a dosimeter that measures biological damage following delivery of therapeutic beams in the form of double-strand breaks (DSBs) to DNA. The dosimeter contains DNA strands that are labeled on one end with biotin and on the other with fluorescein and attached to magnetic microbeads. Following irradiation, a magnet is used to separate broken from unbroken DNA strands. Then, fluorescence is utilized to measure the relative amount of broken DNA and determine the probability for DSB. The long-term goal for this research is to evaluate whether this type of biologically based dosimeter holds any advantages over the conventional techniques. The purpose of this work was to optimize the dosimeter fabrication and usage to enable higher precision for the long-term research goal. More specifically, the goal was to optimize the DNA dosimeter using three metrics: the response, precision, and cost per dosimeter. Six aspects of the dosimeter fabrication and usage were varied and evaluated for their effect on the metrics: (1) the type of magnetic microbeads, (2) the microbead to DNA mass ratio at attachment, (3) the type of suspension buffer used during irradiation, (4) the concentration of the DNA dosimeter during irradiation, (5) the time waited between fabrication and irradiation of the dosimeter, and (6) the time waited between irradiation and read out of the response. In brief, the best results were achieved with the dosimeter when attaching 4.2 µg of DNA with 1 mg of MyOne T1 microbeads and by suspending the microbead-connected DNA strands with 200 µl of phosphate-buffered saline for irradiation. Also, better results were achieved when waiting a day after fabrication before irradiating the dosimeter and also waiting an hour after irradiation to measure the response. This manuscript is meant to serve as guide for others who would like to replicate this DNA dose measurement technique.
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.