Chemical Radioprotection and Radiosensitization of Mammalian Cells Growing<i>in Vitro</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The radiosensitizing and radioprotective effects of various compounds have been characterized in Chinese hamster fibroblasts growing in vitro and in a model chemical system utilizing DNA as target. The contribution to the lethal action of ionizing radiation in mammalian cells from the indirect effect of OH has been measured. The data are consistent with the “oxygen fixation hypothesis,” whereby target free radicals react either with radical-reducing species, resulting in “chemical repair,” or with radical-oxidizing species, resulting in “fixation” of radical damage to a potentially lethal form. Radical repair–fixation competition has been demonstrated in the in vitro chemical system with a sensitizer other than O2.Dimethyl sulfoxide is shown to radioprotect in both the cellular and chemical systems by scavenging OH. Cysteamine, on the other hand, is shown to protect primarily by adding to the pool of radical-reducing species, resulting in enhanced repair of free-radical damage in the targets. Electron-affinic compounds are shown to radiosensitize, predominantly, by adding to the pool of radical-oxidizing species, resulting in enhanced fixation of free-radical damage in the targets. Diamide is shown to radiosensitize mammalian cells by a mechanism which is additive to that of the electron-affinic compounds. N-Ethylmaleimide shows radiosensitizing characteristics, in mammalian cells, which, in some respects, are qualitatively similar to those of Diamide. These compounds may radiosensitize cells by chemically and/or biochemically altering the pool of radical-reducing species in the vicinity of the cellular targets, resulting in enhanced fixation of radical damage in the targets by endogenous radical-oxidizing species. The oxygen enhancement ratio for hamster cells is shown to depend upon the intracellular target environment, and can be made to vary between near 1 and 3.3.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".