1992
DOI: 10.1080/09553009214552261
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

DNA Organization Affects Cellular Radiosensitivity and Detection of Initial DNA Strand Breaks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
20
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
1
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nonirradiated cells very rarely showed a tail and a signal on it, whereas cells irradiated with 3 Gy always presented a tail, which could vary in size and could contain several signals. This was confirmed by the measure of tail moment (% DNA Â tail length), which is directly proportional to DNA damage and indeed is found to be much higher in irradiated cells (39,40). The analysis of DNA damage in the two cell lines, before and after irradiation, showed also that the tail moment was in general more elevated in lymphoblastoid cells (Table 1).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 56%
“…Nonirradiated cells very rarely showed a tail and a signal on it, whereas cells irradiated with 3 Gy always presented a tail, which could vary in size and could contain several signals. This was confirmed by the measure of tail moment (% DNA Â tail length), which is directly proportional to DNA damage and indeed is found to be much higher in irradiated cells (39,40). The analysis of DNA damage in the two cell lines, before and after irradiation, showed also that the tail moment was in general more elevated in lymphoblastoid cells (Table 1).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 56%
“…Explanations of these variations in conclusion may lie either in technical aspects of the assays used or in the cell types being analysed. It has been suggested that in some assays apparent differences in strand breaks may be a result of differences in features of the cells other than their sensitivity to damage induction (Schwartz & Vaughan, 1989;Olive, 1992). It is, however, clear that differences would not be expected to explain sensitivity in every cell system, as it is clear that cells with repair differences do exist and these would not be expected to show differences in damage induction.…”
mentioning
confidence: 90%
“…We interpreted our results to suggest that the differences between resistant and sensitive lines in elution rates after low-dose exposures most likely reflect alterations in chromosome structure (Schwartz et al, 1991;Olive, 1992;Schwartz and Vaughan, 1993), and thus it is likely that both initial break frequency and rejoining rate reflect alterations in chromosome structure. Differences in how DNA doublestrand break frequencies are measured in each laboratory may account for the slightly different results and conclusions concerning which parameter best correlates with clonogenic survival.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…X-radiation sensitivity was determined by clonogenic survival assay (Weichselbaum et al, 1988a(Weichselbaum et al, , 1989 (Schwartz et al, 1990) Cells were exposed to 100 Gy of 6'Co gamma rays. While elution rates can be measured after exposures to lower doses, interexperimental variability is usually greater at low doses and elution rates may be influenced more by chromosome structure (Schwartz et al, 1991;Olive, 1992;Schwartz and Vaughan, 1993 We examined DNA double-strand break frequencies after a 1 h incubation in complete medium at 20°C. We chose this time point because in our original studies (Schwartz et al, 1988), the 1 h time point gave us the biggest differences between resistant and sensitive cells.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%