ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics2020
Biological effectiveness of very high gamma dose rate and its implication for radiological protection.
Article in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Probiotic intervention mitigates radiation-induced intestinal injury by alleviating oxidative stress in a human gut-on-a-chip.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Equivalent relative biological effectiveness for cell survival and micronuclei formation: insights from a biophysical approach.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Home-made low-cost dosemeter for photon dose measurements in radiobiological experiments and for education in the field of radiation sciences.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2024Article
- The cell-assembled extracellular matrix: A focus on the storage stability and terminal sterilization of this human "bio" material.Acta biomaterialia · 2023Article
- Short- and long-term effects of radiation exposure at low dose and low dose rate in normal human VH10 fibroblasts.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Hypothermia differentially modulates the formation and decay of NBS1, γH2AX and 53BP1 foci in U2OS cells exposed to gamma radiation.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Establishment ofFrontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many experimental studies are carried out to compare biological effectiveness of high dose rate (HDR) with that of low dose rate (LDR). The rational for this is the uncertainty regarding the value of the dose rate effectiveness factor (DREF) used in radiological protection. While a LDR is defined as 0.1 mGy/min or lower, anything above that is seen as HDR. In cell and animal experiments, a dose rate around 1 Gy/min is usually used as representative for HDR. However, atomic bomb survivors, the reference cohort for radiological protection, were exposed to tens of Gy/min. The important question is whether gamma radiation delivered at very high dose rate (VHDR-several Gy/min) is more effective in inducing DNA damage than that delivered at HDR. The aim of this investigation was to compare the biological effectiveness of gamma radiation delivered at VHDR (8.25 Gy/min) with that of HDR (0.38 Gy/min or 0.79 Gy/min). Experiments were carried out with human peripheral mononuclear cells (PBMC) and the human osteosarcoma cell line U2OS. Endpoints related to DNA damage response were analysed. The results show that in PBMC, VHDR is more effective than HDR in inducing gene expression and micronuclei. In U2OS cells, the repair of 53BP1 foci was delayed after VHDR indicating a higher level of damage complexity, but no VHDR effect was observed at the level of micronuclei and clonogenic cell survival. We suggest that the DREF value may be underestimated when the biological effectiveness of HDR and LDR is compared.
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.