MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097531570 · doi:10.1093/jrr/rrt173

Quantitative characteristics of clustered DNA damage in irradiated cells by heavy ion beams

2014· article· en· W2097531570 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hiroaki Terato, Yuka Shimazaki-Tokuyama, Yuko Inoue, Yoshiya Furusawa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Radiation Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsLinear energy transferDNA damageIrradiationHeavy ionIonRadiation damageDNAIonizationCluster (spacecraft)Ion beamIonizing radiationBeam (structure)RadiationChemistryRadiochemistryPhysicsNuclear physicsOpticsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heavy ion beam as typical high linear energy transfer (LET) radiation produces more expanding ionization domain around their tracks than low LET radiation such as X-rays and gamma rays. Thus, heavy ion beam can cause more densely accumulated damage cluster in the target DNA, termed clustered DNA damage. This damage exhibits difficulty for repair and inhibition of DNA replication with its complex structure [ 1]. So, clustered DNA damage is thought to be strongly involved in the biological effectiveness of heavy ion beam. However, a lot of studies have presented no certain correlation between yields of clustered DNA damage and severity of radiation effect. We previously indicated that the yields of clustered DNA damage decreased with increasing LET in the DNA molecules irradiated in test tubes with gamma rays, and carbon and iron ion beams whose showed different LET, respectively [ 2]. In this study, we aimed to reveal correlation between clustered DNA damage and the LET of heavy ion beam in the irradiated cells. In the experiments, Chinese hamster ovary AA8 cells growing exponentially were irradiated by carbon, silicon, argon and iron ion beams from Heavy Ion Medical Accelerator in Chiba (HIMAC) of the National Institute of Radiological Sciences, Japan. These LETs were 13, 55, 90 and 200 keV/µm, respectively. For comparison, we used gamma rays from 137Cs-gamma source, Gammacell 40 (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd), at Saga University. The irradiated cells were subjected by static-field gel electrophoresis to quantify clustered DNA damage of the genomic DNA. For this analysis, we used Fpg and endonuclease III for clustered DNA damage including oxidative purine and pyrimidine lesions, respectively. We also analysed the corresponding isolated DNA damages by aldehyde reactive probe method [ 3], and the surviving fractions of the irradiated cells in this study. The yields of clustered DNA damages in the cells irradiated with respective ionizing radiations. Each clustered DNA damage consists of DSB (open bar) and clustered base damage (closed bar), and calculated from the strength of released band on electrophoretic gel. Clinical trial registration number if required: None.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Radiation ResearchSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207