2012
DOI: 10.3109/09553002.2013.747014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cytogenetic studies on newborns from high and normal level natural radiation areas of Kerala in southwest coast of India

Abstract: Frequencies of chromosomal aberration and karyotype anomalies between the newborns from the high level natural radiation area (HLNRA) and normal level natural radiation areas (NLNRA) were very similar.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Most importantly, the unique feature of HLNRA of Kerala coast is the non-uniform distribution of monazite in the beach sand which leads to varying level of background radiation (<1.0 to 45mGy/year) along the 55 km long stretch allowing us to investigate in-vivo dose response, if any at various biological end points. Several epidemiological (congenital malformation, cancer incidence etc) and biological studies carried out in this population have not revealed any significant difference between NLNRA and HLNRA population [ 9 , 11 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 22 ]. However, recent studies have shown a lower induction and efficient repair of DNA damage in HLNRA individuals [ 21 , 23 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Most importantly, the unique feature of HLNRA of Kerala coast is the non-uniform distribution of monazite in the beach sand which leads to varying level of background radiation (<1.0 to 45mGy/year) along the 55 km long stretch allowing us to investigate in-vivo dose response, if any at various biological end points. Several epidemiological (congenital malformation, cancer incidence etc) and biological studies carried out in this population have not revealed any significant difference between NLNRA and HLNRA population [ 9 , 11 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 22 ]. However, recent studies have shown a lower induction and efficient repair of DNA damage in HLNRA individuals [ 21 , 23 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…So far, no significant changes are observed at phenotype level. This population has also been investigated for several biological end points such as chromosome aberrations, micronuclei, telomere length measurement and quantitation of DNA damage [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ].None of the above DNA damage end points have shown significant difference between the population from HLNRA and the adjacent normal level natural radiation areas (NLNRA). The spontaneous level of DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) has not shown any increase in DSBs, rather showed marginal reduction in HLNRA individuals belonging to background dose group >5mGy/year [ 18 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, difficulties exist to obtain relevant and updated exposure, confounder and outcome information. Some of the difficulties can be overcome by focusing on specific populations samples such as in a cytogenetic study of newborns in the Kerala area (Ramachandran et al 2013), and in the future potentially by conducting nested case-control studies. Overall, these studies augment investigations on occupational groups, on medically or environmentally exposed persons, and notably the lifespan study among survivors of the atomic bombings.…”
Section: High Natural Background Radiation and Health: An Overview Of Current Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, a statistically significant ( P < 0.001) age-dependent increase in MN frequency was observed among individuals from both HBRA and NBRA. Whereas Ramachandran et al [31] studied in a total of 1,267,788 metaphases from 27,295 newborns of mothers aged 17–45 years were analyzed during 1986–2007. Frequencies of dicentrics in high and normal level radiation areas were 1.90 ± 0.14 and 2.01 ± 0.26 per 10,000 cells, respectively.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%