ArticleDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
Comparative Transcriptomic Analysis Unveils Divergent Effects of FLASH Versus Conventional Irradiation on Skin Cells.
Article in Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Influencing the Biological Effects of FLASH Irradiation.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Characterization of the Intestinal Metabolic Profiles Following Photon FLASH Irradiation.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Efficacy of Radiotherapy FLASH-RT: From Treating Lung Cancer to Preventing Pulmonary Fibrosis.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: FLASH radiotherapy is garnering attention for its capacity to diminish skin toxicity without compromising tumoricidal efficacy, presenting a stark contrast to conventional (CONV) radiotherapy. Despite its promise, the underlying molecular mechanisms of FLASH irradiation (FLASH-IR) on skin are not yet fully elucidated. Methods: This study investigated the transcriptomic responses of human foreskin fibroblast cells (HFF-1) via the FLASH-IR or CONV irradiation (CONV-IR), employing the next-generation RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) to capture the gene expression profiles. Our comparative analysis aimed to dissect the cellular and molecular pathways influenced by these two irradiation methods. Results: We identified a spectrum of differentially expressed genes (DEGs), signaling pathways, and transcriptional networks that were either shared or divergent between FLASH-IR and CONV-IR. Particularly, transcription factor NR4A1 showed significant upregulation in response to FLASH-IR, while chromatin stability factor ELF3 was markedly downregulated following CONV-IR. The top 10 up-regulated DEGs were subjected to qPCR validation, confirming their differential expression in response to FLASH-IR and CONV-IR. Conclusion: Collectively, our findings delineate unique regulatory landscapes of FLASH-IR and CONV-IR on skin cells, corroborating established effects and shedding new light on the molecular interplay within the context of ultra-high dose radiation.
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.