Comparison of two methods for measuring γ-H2AX nuclear fluorescence as a marker of DNA damage in cultured human cells: applications for microbeam radiation therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microbeam radiation therapy (MRT) delivers single fractions of very high doses of synchrotron x-rays using arrays of microbeams. In animal experiments, MRT has achieved higher tumour control and less normal tissue toxicity compared to single-fraction broad beam irradiations of much lower dose. The mechanism behind the normal tissue sparing of MRT has yet to be fully explained. An accurate method for evaluating DNA damage, such as the γ-H2AX immunofluorescence assay, will be important for understanding the role of cellular communication in the radiobiological response of normal and cancerous cell types to MRT. We compare two methods of quantifying γ-H2AX nuclear fluorescence for uniformly irradiated cell cultures: manual counting of γ-H2AX foci by eye, and an automated, MATLAB-based fluorescence intensity measurement. We also demonstrate the automated analysis of cell cultures irradiated with an array of microbeams. In addition to offering a relatively high dynamic range of γ-H2AX signal versus irradiation dose ( > 10 Gy), our automated method provides speed, robustness, and objectivity when examining a series of images. Our in-house analysis facilitates the automated extraction of the spatial distribution of the γ-H2AX intensity with respect to the microbeam array — for example, the intensities in the peak (high dose area) and valley (area between two microbeams) regions. The automated analysis is particularly beneficial when processing a large number of samples, as is needed to systematically study the relationship between the numerous dosimetric and geometric parameters involved with MRT (e.g., microbeam width, microbeam spacing, microbeam array dimensions, peak dose, valley dose, and geometric arrangement of multiple arrays) and the resulting DNA damage.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".