Dynamics of Micronuclei in Rat Skin Fibroblasts after X Irradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a previous study, we demonstrated DNA damage, expressed as micronuclei, in binucleate dermal fibroblasts obtained from human skin 2-9 weeks after fractionated radiotherapy. Here we assessed micronuclei in X-irradiated skin fibroblasts from 9-14-week-old female Lewis rats as a function of time after a single dose of radiation to determine the lifetime of such damage in the skin. After irradiation with 5, 10, 15 and 18 Gy, formation of micronuclei at 1 day or 2 months postirradiation increased up to about 10 Gy, with evidence for a plateau at higher doses. The time course of micronuclei present in the skin fibroblasts demonstrated a plateau region (approximately 20 days after 18 Gy and about 2 months after 10 Gy) before the number of micronuclei started to decline. Residual micronuclei were observed for more than 1 year after irradiation. Monomicronucleated cells predominated in fibroblasts from nonirradiated skin, whereas in fibroblasts from irradiated skin, multimicronucleated cells predominated and persisted (together with monomicronucleated cells) in the residual levels of damage at late times. The results suggest that DNA damage in dermal fibroblasts can be assayed by the micronucleus assay in samples from irradiated skin up to 1 month after irradiation for doses up to at least 10 Gy. Further studies are needed to define the dose-response relationship in detail.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".