Genetic Differences in Transcript Responses to Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation Identify Tissue Functions Associated with Breast Cancer Susceptibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High dose ionizing radiation (IR) is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer but the health effects after low-dose (LD, <10 cGy) exposures remain highly uncertain. We explored a systems approach that compared LD-induced chromosome damage and transcriptional responses in strains of mice with genetic differences in their sensitivity to radiation-induced mammary cancer (BALB/c and C57BL/6) for the purpose of identifying mechanisms of mammary cancer susceptibility. Unirradiated mammary and blood tissues of these strains differed significantly in baseline expressions of DNA repair, tumor suppressor, and stress response genes. LD exposures of 7.5 cGy (weekly for 4 weeks) did not induce detectable genomic instability in either strain. However, the mammary glands of the sensitive strain but not the resistant strain showed early transcriptional responses involving: (a) diminished immune response, (b) increased cellular stress, (c) altered TGFβ-signaling, and (d) inappropriate expression of developmental genes. One month after LD exposure, the two strains showed opposing responses in transcriptional signatures linked to proliferation, senescence, and microenvironment functions. We also discovered a pre-exposure expression signature in both blood and mammary tissues that is predictive for poor survival among human cancer patients (p = 0.0001), and a post-LD-exposure signature also predictive for poor patient survival (p<0.0001). There is concordant direction of expression in the LD-exposed sensitive mouse strain, in biomarkers of human DCIS and in biomarkers of human breast tumors. Our findings support the hypothesis that genetic mechanisms that determine susceptibility to LD radiation induced mammary cancer in mice are similar to the tissue mechanisms that determine poor-survival in breast cancer patients. We observed non-linearity of the LD responses providing molecular evidence against the LNT risk model and obtained new evidence that LD responses are strongly influenced by genotype. Our findings suggest that the biological assumptions concerning the mechanisms by which LD radiation is translated into breast cancer risk should be reexamined and suggest a new strategy to identify genetic features that predispose or protect individuals from LD-induced breast cancer.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".