nuclear science and technology

Similar documents
Genomic Instability Induced by Ionizing Radiation

LET, RBE and Damage to DNA

What is radiation quality?

Modelling the induction of cell death and chromosome damage by therapeutic protons

The application of 1.6 MeV proton microbeam to investigate radiation-induced bystander effect in MIA PaCa-2 pancreatic cancer cell line

LYMHOCYTE CHROMOSOMAL ABERRATION ASSAY IN RADIATION BIODOSIMETRY

Mitosis and Cytokinesis

nuclear science and technology

Biological Effects of Radiation KJ350.

nuclear science and technology

Chapter 7. What is Radiation Biology? Ionizing Radiation. Energy Transfer Determinants 09/21/2014

KEY CONCEPT Cells have distinct phases of growth, reproduction, and normal functions. The cell cycle has 4 main stages. The cell cycle is a regular

BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF

Mitosis THE CELL CYCLE. In unicellular organisms, division of one cell reproduces the entire organism Multicellular organisms use cell division for..

FISH and PNA-FISH. FISH and PNA-FISH. Stochastic effect. Radiation and cancer. 1) chromosome 2) FISH 3) PNA-FISH. Chromosome translocations.

Computer modeling of radiation effects

María José Mesa López

The Impact of Bystander Effects and Adaptive Responses in the Health Risks of Low Dose Ionizing Radiation

Mitosis. AND Cell DiVISION

Modelling of Biological Processes

TFY4315 STRÅLINGSBIOFYSIKK

Mitosis and Cellular Division. EQ: How do the cells in our body divide?

RADIATION RISK ASSESSMENT

10-2 Cell Division. Slide 1 of 38. End Show. Copyright Pearson Prentice Hall

Biological Effects of Radiation

Histones- protein molecules that are used to fold and package DNA into chromosomes.

10-2 Cell Division. Chromosomes

UNC-Duke Biology Course for Residents Fall Cell Cycle Effects of Radiation

Acquisition of Radiation Resistant Ability in Non- Irradiated Cells by Secreted Factors from Low Dose Irradiated Cells

Part I: The Cell Cycle

Mitosis. An Introduction to Genetics. An Introduction to Cell Division

C-Beam Induces More Chromosomal Damage In Chemo-Radio-Resistant Cells Than. O-Beam

Health Physics and the Linear No-Threshold Model

Change in frequency of radiation induced micronuclei during interphase of four-cell mouse embryos in vitro

Lecture -2- Environmental Biotechnology

Mitosis and the Cell Cycle

Breaking Up is Hard to Do (At Least in Eukaryotes) Mitosis

The impact of different radiation qualities on cancer cells

The Cell Cycle and Cell Division

Mitosis. Mitosis with cancer and cloning

Fig. 1. Simple columnar epithelial cells lining the small intestine.

Chapter 2. Mitosis and Meiosis

Science 9- Mr. Klasz

Biology is the only subject in which multiplication is the same thing as division

10-2 Cell Division mitosis. cytokinesis. Chromosomes chromosomes Slide 1 of 38

KEY CONCEPT Cells have distinct phases of growth, reproduction, and normal functions.

Peak temperature ratio of TLD glow curves to investigate the spatial variation of LET in a clinical proton beam

Mitosis Notes AP Biology Mrs. Laux

The Cellular Basis of Reproduction and Inheritance

Radiobiology of fractionated treatments: the classical approach and the 4 Rs. Vischioni Barbara MD, PhD Centro Nazionale Adroterapia Oncologica

Chapter 12. living /non-living? growth repair renew. Reproduction. Reproduction. living /non-living. fertilized egg (zygote) next chapter

Nature of Radiation and DNA damage

Breaking Up is Hard to Do (At Least in Eukaryotes) Mitosis

Ploidy and Human Cell Types. Cell Cycle and Mitosis. DNA and Chromosomes. Where It All Began 11/19/2014. Chapter 12 Pg

Prentice Hall Biology Slide 1 of 38

AP: CELL CYCLE REGULATION

Part II The Cell Cell Division, Chapter 2 Outline of class notes

Transgenerational Transmission of Radiation Damage: Genomic Instability and Congenital Malformation 1

The Cell Cycle 4/10/12. Chapter 12. Overview: The Key Roles of Cell Division

Radiation Oncology. Initial Certification Qualifying (Computer-based) Examination: Study Guide for Radiation and Cancer Biology

LECTURE PRESENTATIONS

Chromosome Abnormalities

Chapter 12. Regulation of Cell Division. AP Biology

Molecular Radiobiology Module 4 Part #3

The Cell Cycle CHAPTER 12

Regulation of Cell Division. AP Biology

Why do cells divide? Cells divide in order to make more cells they multiply in order to create a larger surface to volume ratio!!!

Biology is the only subject in which multiplication is the same thing as division

10-2 Cell Division. Copyright Pearson Prentice Hall

5.1. KEY CONCEPT Cells have distinct phases of growth, reproduction, and normal functions. 68 Reinforcement Unit 2 Resource Book

Chronic cell death may play a crucial role in mutagenesis and carcinogenesis due to radon exposure

CHAPTER TWO MECHANISMS OF RADIATION EFFECTS

5/25/2015. Replication fork. Replication fork. Replication fork. Replication fork

Regulators of Cell Cycle Progression

8.4 The cell cycle multiplies cells. 8.4 The cell cycle multiplies cells

Chapter 10 Cell Growth and Division

Cellular Reproduction, Part 1: Mitosis Lecture 10 Fall 2008

COMPARISON OF RADIOBIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF CARBON IONS TO PROTONS ON A RESISTANT HUMAN MELANOMA CELL LINE

Neutrons. ρ σ. where. Neutrons act like photons in the sense that they are attenuated as. Unlike photons, neutrons interact via the strong interaction

The Cell Cycle. Chapter 12. Biology Eighth Edition Neil Campbell and Jane Reece. PowerPoint Lecture Presentations for

Application of chromosomal radiosensitivity assays to temporary nuclear power plant workers

Cell Cycle Notes --PreAP

The In-flux of Nuclear Science to Radiobiology

2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

Interazioni iniziali Radiaz. indirett. ionizzanti (raggi X, raggi γ)

The Cell Cycle 4/10/12. Chapter 12. Overview: The Key Roles of Cell Division

The Cell Cycle. Chapter 12. Biology. Edited by Shawn Lester. Eighth Edition Neil Campbell and Jane Reece. PowerPoint Lecture Presentations for

-The cell s hereditary endowment of DNA -Usually packaged into chromosomes for manageability

Direct evidence for a bystander effect of ionizing radiation in primary human fibroblasts

Murat Beyzadeoglu, Gokhan Ozyigit, and Cuneyt Ebruli

Cellular Reproduction, Part 2: Meiosis Lecture 10 Fall 2008

Basics of Radiation Biology

Basics of Radiation Biology

Cell Division and Mitosis

The Cell Cycle. Chapter 12. PowerPoint Lecture Presentations for Biology Eighth Edition Neil Campbell and Jane Reece

A general mechanistic model enables predictions of the biological effectiveness of different qualities of radiation

Mitosis & Meiosis. Diploid cells- (2n)- a cell that has 2 of each chromosome - 1 from mom, 1 from dad = 1 pair

Unit 4 Student Notes Cell Cycle

Unduplicated. Chromosomes. Telophase

Transcription:

EUROPEAN COMMISSION nuclear science and technology The role of intercellular communication and DNA double-strand breaks in the induction of bystander effects (INTERSTANDER) Contract N o FIGH-CT2002-00218 Final report (summary) Work performed as part of the European Atomic Energy Community's research and training programme in the field of nuclear energy 1998-2002 (Fifth Framework Programme) Generic research in radiological sciences Directorate-General for Research 2008 Euratom

Project coordinator University of Essen, DE II

A commonly accepted assumption is that the biological effects of ionising radiation are a direct consequence of DNA damage in the exposed cells. However, recent studies have demonstrated non-targeted effects (i.e. effects in cells not directly exposed to radiation, but which are in the vicinity of the exposed cells) at highly significant levels. Such non-targeted effects have been shown to cause cell killing, mutations, cancerous transformation and other cellular responses associated with DNA damage in bystander, non-irradiated cells. These observations question the validity of the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) extrapolated estimates of cancer risk for low-dose exposures, which do not consider bystander effects. Similarly, the practice of radiotherapy assumes that damage is inflicted only in tissues within the radiation field. Radiation is not thought to affect adjacent non-exposed areas. Thus, an evaluation of the relative contribution of bystander effects to the overall response of tissues to ionising radiation and an understanding of the underlying mechanisms is a prerequisite for accurate recommendations in radiation protection and valid predictions in radiation therapy. The main objective of the present proposal was to try to further our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying bystander responses. One hypothesis is that bystander effects are caused by the transfer of low-molecular-weight chemical factors excreted from irradiated cells which affect non-exposed, nearby cells. An alternative hypothesis is that the transfer of small molecules occurs from irradiated cells through gap junctions, cell-membrane channels, through which low-molecular-weight substances can pass between adjacent cells. Such intercellular passage could for example allow damaging reactive oxygen species, or signalling molecules, to pass from irradiated to non-irradiated cells. The INTERSTANDER project focused first on the development and characterisation and then on the use of model systems to study the contributions of such extracellular and gap-junctional transfer of low-molecular-weight factors to the development of bystander effects. One experimental strategy was to use intercellular communication-deficient cells to quantify the role of excreted factors in causing bystander effects. A second strategy aimed at evaluating the contribution of gap junctions by restoring the relevant connexins (the building blocks of gap junctions) by introducing a genetically engineered DNA expression vector into the gap-junction-deficient cells. A further approach was aimed at understanding the initiating signal for the bystander effect. The hypothesis was that a DNA double-strand break could be the initiating signal. Thus the strategy for testing this hypothesis involved the use of a genetically engineered cell strain in which we could make a single break in the DNA chain (at a I-Sce-I site in one specific chromosome, using an enzyme introduced into the cell by poration techniques). Comparison of results with those from a microbeam of alpha particles (a very fine beam of ionising particles produced from a small radioactive source which can be directed at well defined numbers in specific parts of a cell, e.g. the cell nucleus) that also produces chain breaks in cells DNA would allow us to evaluate the possible contribution of a low level of oxidative stress to the bystander effect, since in addition to cutting the DNA directly, these particles also produce reactive oxygen species near the DNA. Also, microbeam irradiation of the cell away from its nucleus to the cytoplasm with low-let microbeam protons provided a further possibility to investigate the role of oxidative stress, this time in the absence of DNA damage. Co-culture protocols were applied to study the development of G2 arrest and the activation of p53 (as end points) in a number of cell lines, characterised in terms of their ability to establish gap junctions. 1

Experiments (Essen group) carried out with bend3 cells did not demonstrate bystander effects when using these end points. Because bystander responses are reported to be more significant following high LET radiation, the effect of neutron irradiation was tested using the same cell line. Here again no evidence for bystander responses could be obtained despite the outstanding capability of these cells to develop intercellular communication. Other cell lines (reported as showing bystander effects) were tested using the same experimental approach. However inexplicably, in our hands bystander responses could not be demonstrated in any of these cell lines. Although the majority of the results obtained in these investigations are negative in terms of eliciting a bystander response, we believe that they are important in the field as they allow narrowing down the conditions under which their development occurs. Our observations when contrasted with reports of robust bystander responses using the same cell lines using different experimental approaches suggest that their development in the co-culture experiments may be prevented by the required manipulations such as trypsinisation. Further experiments involving co-culture of two populations under conditions that allow free exchange of soluble factors whilst preventing the mixing of the cell populations (and using micronucleus formation as an end point for bystander response) did not show a bystander response. Results with co-cultured malignant trophoblast Jeg3 cells after exposure to 5 Gy X-rays using activation of p53 as end-point provided evidence for bystander effects. This bystander effect was not mediated via gap junctions because the effect was similar in both communicating and non-communicating Jeg3 cells, and was independent from the connexin isoform expressed. These results suggest that the observed bystander effect in Jeg3 cells operates by paracrine mechanisms and does not require active intercellular communication. In addition, differences in the results obtained between the Essen groups point to additional factors determining bystander responses that require further clarification. As noted above, bystander effects have been reported to be more marked at high LET and are also reported to be dependent on the type of cells used. However, using cell survival as endpoint, experiments (Braunschweig group) with primary human skin fibroblasts (HSF2) exposed to 4.5 MeV alpha particles (LET = 100 kev/µm) showed no bystander effects. Surprisingly, after exposure of these human cells to 10 MeV microbeam protons (LET = 4.7 kev/µm), a significantly higher survival (i.e. compared to unirradiated controls) was observed for doses lower than about 0.3 Gy when all cells, or when only 10 % of all cells, were irradiated. These results indicate protective rather than the expected negative bystander effect. The finding that primary human fibroblasts, which are competent in forming gap junctions, show no bystander effect after high LET exposure, whereas immortalised rodent fibroblasts (C3H10T1/2 cells) do, suggests that immortalisation or cell type are significant determinants in the development of bystander effects. As a further test for the production of bystander factors within irradiated cells, the outcome of fusing irradiated and non-irradiated cells was investigated (Athens group). For this purpose two sets of experiments were carried out. In the first set, irradiated G 0 lymphocytes were fused to exponentially growing (un-irradiated) CHO cells. In the resultant syncytium (containing the two cell nuclei), lymphocyte prematurely condensed chromosomes (PCCs) were induced when the CHO nucleus entered mitosis. However, endogenous bystander effects between the irradiated lymphocyte nucleus and cellular components and the unirradiated CHO nucleus were not observed, i.e. no increase in PCC fragments was seen over background in the non-exposed CHO chromosomes. But when irradiated CHO cells 2

were fused to non-irradiated G 0 lymphocytes, the lymphocyte chromosomes were undamaged. However, surprisingly the frequency of aberrations in CHO chromosomes was significantly lower when compared with that in non-fused CHO cells, i.e. the lymphocyte component of the hybrid was exerting a type of protective effect. Further experimental data suggested that the protection observed in irradiated CHO cells, when fused to non-irradiated lymphocytes, may result from a delay in cell-cycle progression of the hybrids, possibly giving time for DNA repair to occur in the irradiated CHO chromosomes. When the hybrid CHO/human cells were irradiated immediately after fusion, the yield of excess PCC fragments in the human chromosomes was found to be approximately double that obtained when only the lymphocytes were irradiated with the same dose just before their fusion to mitotic cells, possibly indicating the presence of a damaging endogenous factor released by the CHO nucleus or cellular components, which could be equivalent to a bystander factor. However, further experiments would be required to test this hypothesis. To study whether a bystander effect could be mediated between irradiated (male) lymphocytes and non-irradiated (female) lymphocytes via the culture medium, peripheral blood from male donors was irradiated and immediately mixed with blood from female donors. The mixed cells were then cultured in the presence of PHA, and chromosomal aberrations were scored in the female lymphocytes. No bystander effects were detected between cells from several different donors having a range of radiosensitivities. The aim of the St Andrews University contribution to INTERSTANDER was to investigate whether DNA double-strand breaks (DSB) could be the initiating lesions in a bystander effect. A second aim was to test whether the bystander signal, or factor, is intercellular gapjunction mediated or transmitted via the growth medium. Initial experiments were carried out using a cell line (human choriocarcinoma Jeg-3, already available in Essen) conditionally expressing connexin-43-mediated gap junctions, in order to investigate the role of gap junctions in the bystander effect. However, an early problem was encountered in that it was found not possible to select for a Jeg3 clone containing the single I-SceI DSB-site plasmid (pcmvi-scei) since this cell line was already G418 resistant, a fact that we weren t aware of at the outset of the project. Therefore as an alternative strategy, we chose to use an interspecies co-culture system employing one of our own engineered muntjac cell lines as the donor cells in the bystander experiment. This cell line contains three plasmids, one for the I- SceI DSB site and the other two constituting the inducible I-SceI endonuclease system. This cell line was shown to constitutively express connexin-43 and therefore could be used to couple with Jeg3 cells. Another significant advantage was that muntjac cells form very stable confluent mono-layers on which the recipient bystander cells could be plated in co-culture experiments. Experiments using dye markers indicated that inter-cellular gap-junction coupling was occurring between these two cell lines. As a preliminary experiment to test for a bystander effect with radiation, we mixed irradiated donor muntjac cells with Jeg-3 cells and looked for the induction of sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs) in the recipient (unirradiated) Jeg3 cell population. In this experiment, following irradiation of the confluent and quiescent muntjac monolayer, the exponentially growing Jeg3 cells were overlayed on the muntjac cell layer and then labelled through two cell cycles with bromodeoxyuridine in order to detect the SCEs. Very rare muntjac cell metaphases were observed, indicating the almost totally quiescent nature of the underlayer, and could be easily distinguished from Jeg3 cells by their karyotype. We could not detect a significant increase in SCEs in the Jeg3 cells. However, we found that the frequency of SCEs in directly irradiated Jeg3 cells showed only a small increase, confirming that ionising radiation per se is not a very potent inducer of SCEs in this cell line. However, other agents are more efficient at inducing SCEs and it was possible that a 3

bystander factor (e.g. reactive oxygen species) might have been more efficient than ionising radiation at inducing SCEs. As an alternative strategy to the use of SCEs, we used phosphorylated p53 as an end point. However, it was found that the immunocytochemical detection of p53 in Jeg3 cells was problematic due to a high background staining in controls, Jeg3 cells being derived from a human choriocarcinoma. It was therefore decided to adopt a different strategy, namely using CHO-CHO interaction. The kinetics of induction of CFP-tagged p53 was determined by western blot. In bystander experiments the donor population was the CHO cell line containing an I-SceI site and inducible endonuclease (meganuclease), and the recipient line was engineered to contain a plasmid expressing CFP-tagged p53 to distinguish it from the normal p53 (actually non-functional in CHO). Using western blots, induction of phosphorylated CFPtagged p53 was observed in directly irradiated cells and some (but rather variable from experiment to experiment) induction was observed in (unirradiated) bystander cells with either co-culture of donor and recipients or simply with medium transfer from donor cultures. Experiments using the restriction endonuclease as an initiating signal was substantial and therefore this method would be well worth following up with future experiments. Thus in summary, results with SCE as an end point do not show evidence of a bystander effect. Experiments with phosphorylated CFP-tagged p53 as a novel marker of a damage response were more promising and in preliminary experiments a small bystander effect was indeed observed. However, this technique is very sensitive and requires further work to lower background induction of p53 phosphorylation (probably caused by stress on cells during the treatments), so that it is possible to distinguish a positive bystander effect from the background. Overall, the project allowed the development and optimisation of powerful methods with potential utility in the evaluation of bystander responses, such as the cell-fusion experiments and co-culture techniques. The negative results obtained allow a better definition of the operational space for bystander responses and will facilitate the focusing of future studies. 4