Comparison of direct and bystander effects induced by ionizing radiation in eight fish cell lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine bystander and direct effects of ionizing radiation on eight fish cell lines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fish cell lines were irradiated at a range of doses from 0.5 - 5 Gy. The Irradiated Cell Conditioned Medium (ICCM) was then harvested and placed onto a HPV-G, reporter cell line as well as onto autologous fish cell lines. Cloning efficiency (CE) was the end point used. The HPV-G reporter cell line was chosen because this cell line is capable of transmitting and producing the bystander effect. RESULTS: Four of the eight fish cell lines were clonogenic. These, with the exception of RTG-2 cells, showed increased CE when ICCM was tested on unirradiated autologous cells or on HPV-G cells. ICCM from RTG-2 cells reduced survival. The non-clonogenic cells ICCM tested on HPV-G all showed increased CE. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that both bystander signal production and cellular response varies depending on the cell line and that in general signals from established fish cells do not produce death inducing bystander effects. Thus, the comparison of the effect from fish cell ICCM on autologous cells or HPV-G human cells allowed us to separate signal production from response. In almost all cases, for both non-clonogenic and clonogenic fish cell lines, the HPV-G recipient cell line showed an increase in percent survival compared to controls while the clonogenic fish cell lines do not appear to respond.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".