Reactive oxygen species in cell responses to toxic agents

2002 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
L E Feinendegen

This review first summarizes experimental data on biological effects of different concentrations of ROS in mammalian cells and on their potential role in modifying cell responses to toxic agents. It then attempts to link the role of steadily produced metabolic ROS at various concentrations in mammalian cells to that of environmentally derived ROS bursts from exposure to ionizing radiation. The ROS from both sources are known to both cause biological damage and change cellular signaling, depending on their concentration at a given time. At low concentrations signaling effects of ROS appear to protect cellular survival and dominate over damage, and the reverse occurs at high ROS concentrations. Background radiation generates suprabasal ROS bursts along charged particle tracks several times a year in each nanogram of tissue, i.e., average mass of a mammalian cell. For instance, a burst of about 200 ROS occurs within less than a microsecond from low-LET irradiation such as X-rays along the track of a Compton electron (about 6 keV, ranging about 1 μm). One such track per nanogram tissue gives about 1 mGy to this mass. The number of instantaneous ROS per burst along the track of a 4-meV ¬-particle in 1 ng tissue reaches some 70000. The sizes, types and sites of these bursts, and the time intervals between them directly in and around cells appear essential for understanding low-dose and low dose-rate effects on top of effects from endogenous ROS. At background and low-dose radiation exposure, a major role of ROS bursts along particle tracks focuses on ROS-induced apoptosis of damage-carrying cells, and also on prevention and removal of DNA damage from endogenous sources by way of temporarily protective, i.e., adaptive, cellular responses. A conclusion is to consider low-dose radiation exposure as a provider of physiological mechanisms for tissue homoeostasis.

Author(s):  
Srikanth Nayak ◽  
Arivudai Nambi ◽  
Sathish Kumar ◽  
P Hariprakash ◽  
Pradeep Yuvaraj ◽  
...  

AbstractNumerous studies have documented the adverse effects of high-dose radiation on hearing in patients. On the other hand, radiographers are exposed to a low dose of ionizing radiation, and the effect of a low dose of radiation on hearing is quite abstruse. Therefore, the present systematic review aimed to elucidate the effect of low-dose ionizing radiation on hearing. Two authors independently carried out a comprehensive data search in three electronic databases, including PUBMED/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. Eligible articles were independently assessed for quality by two authors. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used assess quality of the included studies. Two articles met the low-dose radiation exposure criteria given by Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) guidelines. Both studies observed the behavioral symptoms, pure-tone hearing sensitivity at the standard, extended high frequencies, and the middle ear functioning in low-dose radiation-exposed individuals and compared with age and gender-matched controls. One study assessed the cochlear function using transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE). Both studies reported that behavioral symptoms of auditory dysfunction and hearing thresholds at extended high frequencies were higher in radiation-exposed individuals than in the controls. The current systematic review concludes that the low-dose ionizing radiation may affect the hearing adversely. Nevertheless, further studies with robust research design are required to explicate the cause and effect relationship between the occupational low-dose ionizing radiation exposure and hearing.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao Xing ◽  
Chi Zhang ◽  
Minglong Shao ◽  
Qingyue Tong ◽  
Guirong Zhang ◽  
...  

Repetitive exposure of diabetic mice to low-dose radiation (LDR) at 25 mGy could significantly attenuate diabetes-induced renal inflammation, oxidative damage, remodeling, and dysfunction, for which, however, the underlying mechanism remained unknown. The present study explored the effects of LDR on the expression and function of Akt and Nrf2 in the kidney of diabetic mice. C57BL/6J mice were used to induce type 1 diabetes with multiple low-dose streptozotocin. Diabetic and age-matched control mice were irradiated with whole body X-rays at either single 25 mGy and 75 mGy or accumulated 75 mGy (25 mGy daily for 3 days) and then sacrificed at 1–12 h for examining renal Akt phosphorylation and Nrf2 expression and function. We found that 75 mGy of X-rays can stimulate Akt signaling pathway and upregulate Nrf2 expression and function in diabetic kidneys; single exposure of 25 mGy did not, but three exposures to 25 mGy of X-rays could offer a similar effect as single exposure to 75 mGy on the stimulation of Akt phosphorylation and the upregulation of Nrf2 expression and transcription function. These results suggest that single 75 mGy or multiple 25 mGy of X-rays can stimulate Akt phosphorylation and upregulate Nrf2 expression and function, which may explain the prevention of LDR against the diabetic nephropathy mentioned above.


2011 ◽  
Vol 175 (5) ◽  
pp. 665-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. E. J. Mitchel ◽  
M. Hasu ◽  
M. Bugden ◽  
H. Wyatt ◽  
M. P. Little ◽  
...  

Dose-Response ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 155932581878144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul A. Oakley ◽  
Deed E. Harrison

Evidence-based contemporary spinal rehabilitation often requires radiography. Use of radiography (X-rays or computed tomography scans) should not be feared, avoided, or have their exposures lessened to decrease patient dose possibly jeopardizing image quality. This is because all fears of radiation exposures from medical diagnostic imaging are based on complete fabrication of health risks based on an outdated, invalid linear model that has simply been propagated for decades. We present 7 main arguments for continued use of radiography for routine use in spinal rehabilitation: (1) the linear no-threshold model for radiation risk estimates is invalid for low-dose exposures; (2) low-dose radiation enhances health via the body’s adaptive response mechanisms (ie, radiation hormesis); (3) an X-ray with low-dose radiation only induces 1 one-millionth the amount of cellular damage as compared to breathing air for a day; (4) radiography is below inescapable natural annual background radiation levels; (5) radiophobia stems from unwarranted fears and false beliefs; (6) radiography use leads to better patient outcomes; (7) the risk to benefit ratio is always beneficial for routine radiography. Radiography is a safe imaging method for routine use in patient assessment, screening, diagnosis, and biomechanical analysis and for monitoring treatment progress in daily clinical practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document