JOURNAL DESCRIPTION
The Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety journal ISSN 1024-6177 was founded in January 1956 (before December 30, 1993 it was entitled Medical Radiology, ISSN 0025-8334). In 2018, the journal received Online ISSN: 2618-9615 and was registered as an electronic online publication in Roskomnadzor on March 29, 2018. It publishes original research articles which cover questions of radiobiology, radiation medicine, radiation safety, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine and scientific reviews. In general the journal has more than 30 headings and it is of interest for specialists working in thefields of medicine¸ radiation biology, epidemiology, medical physics and technology. Since July 01, 2008 the journal has been published by State Research Center - Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency. The founder from 1956 to the present time is the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, and from 2008 to the present time is the Federal Medical Biological Agency.
Members of the editorial board are scientists specializing in the field of radiation biology and medicine, radiation protection, radiation epidemiology, radiation oncology, radiation diagnostics and therapy, nuclear medicine and medical physics. The editorial board consists of academicians (members of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS)), the full member of Academy of Medical Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, corresponding members of the RAS, Doctors of Medicine, professor, candidates and doctors of biological, physical mathematics and engineering sciences. The editorial board is constantly replenished by experts who work in the CIS and foreign countries.
Six issues of the journal are published per year, the volume is 13.5 conventional printed sheets, 88 printer’s sheets, 1.000 copies. The journal has an identical full-text electronic version, which, simultaneously with the printed version and color drawings, is posted on the sites of the Scientific Electronic Library (SEL) and the journal's website. The journal is distributed through the Rospechat Agency under the contract № 7407 of June 16, 2006, through individual buyers and commercial structures. The publication of articles is free.
The journal is included in the List of Russian Reviewed Scientific Journals of the Higher Attestation Commission. Since 2008 the journal has been available on the Internet and indexed in the RISC database which is placed on Web of Science. Since February 2nd, 2018, the journal "Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety" has been indexed in the SCOPUS abstract and citation database.
Brief electronic versions of the Journal have been publicly available since 2005 on the website of the Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Journal: http://www.medradiol.ru. Since 2011, all issues of the journal as a whole are publicly available, and since 2016 - full-text versions of scientific articles. Since 2005, subscribers can purchase full versions of other articles of any issue only through the National Electronic Library. The editor of the Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Journal in accordance with the National Electronic Library agreement has been providing the Library with all its production since 2005 until now.
The main working language of the journal is Russian, an additional language is English, which is used to write titles of articles, information about authors, annotations, key words, a list of literature.
Since 2017 the journal Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety has switched to digital identification of publications, assigning to each article the identifier of the digital object (DOI), which greatly accelerated the search for the location of the article on the Internet. In future it is planned to publish the English-language version of the journal Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety for its development. In order to obtain information about the publication activity of the journal in March 2015, a counter of readers' references to the materials posted on the site from 2005 to the present which is placed on the journal's website. During 2015 - 2016 years on average there were no more than 100-170 handlings per day. Publication of a number of articles, as well as electronic versions of profile monographs and collections in the public domain, dramatically increased the number of handlings to the journal's website to 500 - 800 per day, and the total number of visits to the site at the end of 2017 was more than 230.000.
The two-year impact factor of RISC, according to data for 2017, was 0.439, taking into account citation from all sources - 0.570, and the five-year impact factor of RISC - 0.352.
Issues journals
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2022. Vol. 67. № 1
Human Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: Characteristics, Radiosensitivity and Effects of Low-Dose Radiation
D.Yu. Usupzhanova, T.A. Astrelina, I.V. Kobzeva, V.A. Brunchukov, A.S. Samoilov
A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: Usupzhanova Daria Yurievna: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Annotation
Throughout life a person is inevitably exposed to low doses of ionizing radiation (LDIR) both background radiation and as part of medical treatment and diagnostics, during professional activities, air travel etc. Today the effects of LDIR and the risks of long-term consequences of this impact are increasingly attracting the researchers attention. On the one hand, scientists point to the development of negative consequences, in particular, the accumulation of double-stranded breaks DNA, on the other hand, some studies demonstrating the development of such events as hormesis and adaptive response. Based on this, there is an assumption that in the range of LDIR may exist a non-linear dependence of the effects on the radiation dose, i.e. the effect isn’t proportional to the received dose and that is consistent with the threshold-concept. Today many scientific papers are devoted to this area of research. Special attention is drawn to the effects LDIR on human mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) because they are the regenerative reserve of the body. Due to the them ability to self-sustain MSCs can stay in the body for a long time and undergo several rounds of irradiation, accumulating the changes in themselves and passing ones to the next generations of cells since they have the potential to the differentiation. Thus, changes that have occurred in the MSCs affect the human body as a whole. Based on all of the above, it can be concluded that the study of the effects of LDIR on mesenchymal stromal cells of human is actual area of research currently.
Keywords: adaptive response, bystander effect, genomic instability, mesenchymal stromal cells, radiosensitivity, effects of low radiation doses, radiation hormesis
For citation: Usupzhanova DYu, Astrelina TA, Kobzeva IV, Brunchukov VA, Samoilov AS. Human Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: Characteristics, Radiosensitivity and Effects of Low-Dose Radiation. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2022;67(1):103-110.
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2022-67-1-103-110
References
1. Squillaro T, Galano G, De Rosa R, Peluso G, Galderisi U. Concise Review: The Effect of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation on Stem Cell Biology: A Contribution to Radiation Risk. Stem Cells. 2018;36(8):1146-1153. doi:10.1002/stem.2836
2. Fazel R, Krumholz H, Wang Y. Exposure to Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation from Medical Imaging Procedures. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50(6):1526-1527. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2009.10.095
3. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2-4):1-332. doi:10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003
4. Thurairajah K, Broadhead M, Balogh Z. Trauma and Stem Cells: Biology and Potential Therapeutic Implications. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(3):577. doi:10.3390/ijms18030577
5. Ullah I, Subbarao R, Rho G. Human mesenchymal stem cells - current trends and future prospective. Biosci Rep. 2015;35(2). doi:10.1042/bsr20150025
6. Aggarwal R, Lu J, J. Pompili V, Das H. Hematopoietic Stem Cells: Transcriptional Regulation, Ex Vivo Expansion and Clinical Application. Curr Mol Med. 2012;12(1):34-49. doi:10.2174/156652412798376125
7. Wang Q, Sun B, Wang D et al. Murine Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells Cause Mature Dendritic Cells to Promote T-Cell Tolerance. Scand J Immunol. 2008;68(6):607-615. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3083.2008.02180.x
8. Spaggiari G, Capobianco A, Abdelrazik H, Becchetti F, Mingari M, Moretta L. Mesenchymal stem cells inhibit natural killer–cell proliferation, cytotoxicity, and cytokine production: role of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase and prostaglandin E2. Blood. 2008;111(3):1327-1333. doi:10.1182/blood-2007-02-074997
9. Stagg J. Immune regulation by mesenchymal stem cells: two sides to the coin. Tissue Antigens. 2007;69(1):1-9. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0039.2006.00739.x
10. Chen L, Tredget E, Wu P, Wu Y. Paracrine Factors of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Recruit Macrophages and Endothelial Lineage Cells and Enhance Wound Healing. PLoS One. 2008;3(4):e1886. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001886
11. Dominici M, Le Blanc K, Mueller I et al. Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement. Cytotherapy. 2006;8(4):315-317. doi:10.1080/14653240600855905
12. Gronthos S, Franklin D, Leddy H, Robey P, Storms R, Gimble J. Surface protein characterization of human adipose tissue-derived stromal cells. J Cell Physiol. 2001;189(1):54-63. doi:10.1002/jcp.1138
13. Friedenstein A, Chailakhjan R, Lalykina K. The development of fibroblast colonies in monolayer cultures of guinea-pig bone marrow and spleen cells. Cell Prolif. 1970;3(4):393-403. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2184.1970.tb00347.x
14. Bonab M, Alimoghaddam K, Talebian F, Ghaffari S, Ghavamzadeh A, Nikbin B. Aging of mesenchymal stem cell in vitro. BMC Cell Biol. 2006;7(1):14. doi:10.1186/1471-2121-7-14
15. Rosland GV, Svendsen A, Torsvik A, Sobala E, McCormack E, Immervoll H, Mysliwietz J, Tonn JC, Goldbrunner R, Lonning PE et al. Long-term cultures of bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stem cells frequently undergo spontaneous malignant transformation. Cancer Res. 2009; 69(1):5331–5339 doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-4630.
16. Chen G, Yue A, Ruan Z, Yin Y, Wang R, Ren Y, Zhu L. Monitoring the biology stability of human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells during long-term culture in serum-free medium. Cell Tissue Bank. 2014; 15(1):513–521 doi: 10.1007/s10561-014-9420-6.
17. Lomax ME, Folkes LK, O'Neill P. Biological consequences of radiation- induced DNA damage: relevance to radiotherapy. Clin. Oncol. (R. Coll. Radiol.). 2013;25(1):578–585. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2013.06.007.
18. Mao Z, Bozzella M, Seluanov A, Gorbunova V. Comparison of non- homologous end joining and homologous recombination in human cells. DNA Repair (Amst.). 2008;7(1):1765–1771. doi: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2008.06.018.
19. Solokov M., Neumman R. Human embryonic stem cell responses to ionizing radiation exposures: current state of knowledge and future challenges. Stem Cells Int. 2012;2012:579104 doi: 10.1155/2012/579104.
20. Prise KM, Saran A. Concise review: stem cell effects in radiation risk. Stem Cells. 2011;29(1):1315–1321. doi: 10.1002/stem.690.
21. Delacote F, Lopez BS. Importance of the cell cycle phase for the choice of the appropriate DSB repair pathway, for genome stability maintenance: the trans-S double-strand break repair model. Cell Cycle. 2008;7(1):33–38. doi: 10.4161/cc.7.1.5149.
22. Islam MS, Stemig ME., Takahashi Y, Hui SK. Radiation response of mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow and human pluripotent stem cells. J. Radiat. Res. 2015;56(1):269–277. doi: 10.1093/jrr/rru098.
23. Nicolay N et al. Mesenchymal stem cells are resistant to carbon ion radiotherapy. Oncotarget. 2015;6(1):2076–2087. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.2857.
24. Oliver L et al. Differentiation-related response to DNA breaks in human mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cells. 2013;31(1):800–807. doi: 10.1002/stem.1336.
25. Tsvetkova A et al. γH2AX, 53BP1 and Rad51 protein foci changes in mesenchymal stem cells during prolonged X-ray irradiation. Oncotarget. 2017;8(1):64317–64329. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.19203.
26. Wu P et al. Early passage mesenchymal stem cells display decreased radiosensitivity and increased DNA repair activity. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2017;6(1):1504–1514. doi: 10.1002/sctm.15-0394. PMID: 28544661.
27. Aypar U, Morgan W, Baulch J. Radiation-induced genomic instability: are epigenetic mechanisms the missing link? Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2011;87(1):179–191. doi: 10.3109/09553002.2010.522686.
28. Meyer B et al. Histone H3 lysine 9 acetylation obstructs ATM activation and promotes ionizing radiation sensitivity in normal stem cells. Stem Cell Rep. 2016;7(1):1013–1022. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.11.004.
29. Armstrong C et al. DNMTs are required for delayed genome instability caused by radiation. Epigenetics. 2012;7(1):892–902. doi: 10.4161/epi.21094.
30. Tang F, Loke W. Molecular mechanisms of low dose ionizing radiation-induced hormesis, adaptive responses, radioresistance, bystander effects, and genomic instability. Int J Radiat Biol. 2015;91(1):13-27. doi: 10.3109/09553002.201 4.937510.
31. Liu S. On radiation hormesis expressed in the immune system. Critical Reviews in Toxicology. 2003;33(1):431-441. doi: 10.1080/713611045.
32. Liang X, So YH, Cui J, Ma K, Xu X, Zhao Y, Cai L, Li W. The low-dose ionizing radiation stimulates cell proliferation via activation of the MAPK/ERK pathway in rat cultured mesenchymal stem cells. Journal of Radiation Research. 2011;52(1):380-386. doi: 10.1269/jrr.10121.
33. Truong K, Bradley S, Baginski B, Wilson J, Medlin D, Zheng L, Wilson R, Rusin M, Takacs E, Dean D. The effect of well-characterized, very low-dose x-ray radiation on fibroblasts. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0190330. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190330
34. Bernal A, Dolinoy D, Huang D, Skaar D, Weinhouse C, Jirtle R. Adaptive radiation-induced epigenetic alterations mitigated by antioxidants. Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. 2013;27(1):665-671. doi: 10.1096/fj.12-220350.
35. Grdina D, Murley J, Miller R, Mauceri H, Sutton H, Thirman M, Li J, Woloschak G, Weichselbaum R. A Manganese Superoxide Dismutase (SOD2)-Mediated Adaptive Response. Radiation Research. 2013;179(1):115-124. doi: 10.1667/RR3126.2.
36. Takahashi A, Ohnishi K, Asakawa I, Kondo N, Nakagawa H, Yonezawa M, Tachibana A, Matsumoto H, Ohnishi T. Radiation response of apoptosis in C57BL/6N mouse spleen after whole-body irradiation. International Journal of Radiation Biology. 2001;77(1): 939-945. doi: 10.1080/09553000110062873.
37. Morgan W, Day J, Kaplan M, McGhee E, Limoli C. Genomic instability induced by ionizing radiation. Radiation Research.1996;146(1):247-258.
38. Pampfer S, Streffer C. Increased chromosome aberration levels in cells from mouse fetuses after zygote X-irradiation. Radiation Biology.1989;55(1):85–92. doi: 10.1080/09553008914550091.
39. Smith L, Nagar S, Kim G, Morgan W. Radiation-induced genomic instability: radiation quality and dose response. Health Physics. 2003;85(1):23-29. doi: 10.1097/00004032-200307000-00006.
40. McIlrath J, Lorimore S, Coates P, Wright E. Radiation induced genomic instability in immortalized haemopoietic stem cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology.2003;79(1):27–34.
41. El-Osta, A. The rise and fall of genomic methylation in cancer. Leukemia. 2004;18(1):233–237 doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2403218.
42. Matsumoto H, Hamada N, Takahashi A, Kobayashi Y, Ohnishi T. Vanguards of paradigm shift in radiation biology: radiation-induced adaptive and bystander responses. Journal of Radiation Research. 2007;48(1):97–106. doi: 10.1269/jrr.06090.
43. Klokov D, Criswell T, Leskov K, Araki S, Mayo L, Boothman D. IR- inducible clusterin gene expression: a protein with potential roles in ionizing radiation-induced adaptive responses, genomic instability, and bystander effects. Mutation Research. 2004;568(1):97-110. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2004.06.049.
44. Moore S, Marsden S, Macdonald D, Mitchell S, Folkard M, Michael B, Goodhead D, Prise K, Kadhim M. Genomic instability in human lymphocytes irradiated with individual charged particles: involvement of tumor necrosis factor alpha in irradiated cells but not bystander cells. Radiation Research. 2005;163(1):183-190. doi: 10.1667/rr3298.
45. Marchese M, Hall E. Encapsulated iodine-125 in radiation oncology. II. Study of the dose rate effect on potentially lethal damage repair (PLDR) using mammalian cell cultures in plateau phase. American Journal of Clinical Oncology.1984;7(1):613-616.
46. Boreham D, Mitchel R. DNA lesions that signal the induction of radioresistance and DNA repair in yeast. Radiation Research. 1991;128(1):19-28.
47. Piccinini A, Midwood K. DAMPening inflammation by modulating TLR signalling. Mediator inflamm. 2010;2010: 672395 doi: 10.1155/2010/672395.
48. Ilnytskyy Y, Koturbash I, Kovalchuk O. Radiation-induced bystander effects in vivo are epigenetically regulated in a tissue-specific manner. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2009;50(2):105-113. doi: 10.1002/em.20440.
49. Yahyapour R, Amini P, Rezapoor S, Rezaeyan A, Farhood B, Cheki M, Fallah H, Najafi M. Targeting of Inflammation for Radiation Protection and Mitigation. Curr. Mol. Pharmacol. 2018;11(3):203-210. doi: 10.2174/1874467210666171108165641.
50. Zhang J, Liu J, Ren J, Sun T, Mitochondrial DNA induces inflammation and increases TLR9/NF-B expression in lung tissue. Int J Mol Med. 2014;33(4):817-824. doi: 10.3892/ijmm.2014.1650.
51. Yahyapour R, Motevaseli E, Rezaeyan A, Abdollahi H, Farhood B, Cheki M, Najafi M, Villa V. Mechanisms of Radiation Bystander and Non-Targeted Effects: Implications to Radiation Carcinogenesis and Radiotherapy. Curr Radiopharm. 2018;11(1):34-45. doi: 10.2174/1874471011666171229123130.
52. Kumar Jella K, Rani S, O'Driscoll L, McClean B, Byrne H, Lyng F. Exosomes are involved in mediating radiation induced by- stander signaling in human keratinocyte cells. Radiat. Res. 2014;181(2):138-145. doi: 10.1667/RR13337.1.
53. Xu S, Wang, J, Ding N, Hu W, Zhang X, Wang B, Hua J, Wei W, Zhu Q. Exosome-mediated microRNA transfer plays a role in radiation-induced bystander effect. RNA. Biol. 2015;12(12):1355-1363. doi: 10.1080/15476286.2015.1100795.
54. Ma Y, Zhang L, Rong S, Qu H, Zhang Y, Chang D, Pan H, Wang W. Relation between gastric cancer and protein oxidation, DNA damage, and lipid peroxidation. Oxid. Med. Cell Lon-gev. 2013;2013:543760. doi: 10.1155/2013/543760.
55. Chaudhry M. Real-time PCR analysis of micro-RNA expression in ionizing radiation-treated cells. Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 2009;24(1):49-56. doi: 10.1089/cbr.2008.0513.
56. Findik D, Song Q, Hidaka H, Lavin M. Protein kinase A inhibitors enhance radiation induced apoptosis. J. Cellular Bio-chem. 1995;57(1):12-21. doi: 10.1002/jcb.240570103.
57. Dong C, He M, Ren R, Xie Y, Yuan D, Dang B, Li W, Shao C. Role of the MAPK pathway in the observed bystander effect in lymphocytes co-cultured with macrophages irradiated with gamma-rays or carbon ions. Life Sci. 2015;127(1):19-25. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2015.02.017.
58. Moon K, Stukenborg G, Keim J, Theodorescu D. Cancer incidence after localized therapy for prostate cancer. Cancer. 2006;107(5):991-998. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22083.
59. Marozik P, Mothersill C, Seymour C.B, Mosse I, Melnov S. Bystander effects induced by serum from survivors of the Chernobyl accident. Exp. Hematol., 2007;35(4):55-63. doi: 10.1016/j.exphem.2007.01.029.
60. Halimi M, Parsian H, Asghari S, Sariri R, Moslemi D, Yeganeh F, Zabihi E. Clinical translation of human microRNA-21 as a potential biomarker for exposure to ionizing radiation. Transl. Res. 2014;163(6):578-584. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2014.01.009.
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution: Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors
Article received: 04.05.2021.
Accepted for publication: 15.10.2021
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2022. Vol. 67. № 1
Calculation Model of Human Exposure to Radiation Exposure
A.G. Zavorotny
Academy of state fire service, Moscow, Russia, Moscow
Contact person: Zavorotny Aleksandr Grigorevich: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The aim of the work is to assess the output of stochastic and deterministic effects depending on the effective dose.
Material and methods: To construct a model for estimating the probability the output of stochastic and deterministic effects depending on the effective dose of radiation, the literature experimental data were used and the probabilistic-statistical method and the least squares method were used.
Results: A mathematical model is developed for estimating the yield of stochastic and deterministic effects depending on the effective radiation dose. A probabilistic mathematical model allows you to convert the risks of deterministic effects due to acute exposure of a person at a high dose and with a small exposure, measured in minutes, to the risks of stochastic effects due to exposure to a small dose during a long exposure (traced or fractionated exposure). The excellent convergence of the predicted (calculated) value EAR1 = 0,000607 and statistical EAR0 = 0.000724 is due to the fact that the reference points LD10 = 2 Gy, LD50/60 = 4 Gy, LD90 = 6 Gy are based on repeatedly verified statistical data on radiation accidents and deaths of more than 1000 people in radiation accidents. This indicates that the mathematical model adequately reflects the output of stochastic and deterministic effects observed in the operation of nuclear facilities both in normal mode and in radiation accidents.
Conclusion: The probability of the yield of stochastic and deterministic effects depending on the dose of radiation received by a person is presented. The threshold of the stochastic effect for humans is in the vicinity of the equivalent dose of 10 mSv at a dose rate of 10 mSv / year for radiation with low linear energy transfer. Moreover, the probability of a stochastic effect coming out is 3×10–6 on average after 15 years.
Keywords: atomic radiation, harmful and dangerous factors for humans, stochastic and deterministic effects, effective radiation dose, the risk of loss of life
For citation: Zavorotny AG. Calculation Model of Human Exposure to Radiation Exposure. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2022;67(1):27-32.
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2022-67-1-27-32
References
1. Ed. Kiselev M. F., Shandala N.K. Publikatsiya. 103 Mezhdunarodnoy Komissii po Radiatsionnoy Zashchite (MKRZ) = 103 of the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP). Per. with English. Moscow, OOO PKF Alana Publ., 2009. 344 c. (In Russ.).
2. Gmurman V.E. Teoriya Veroyatnostey i Matematicheskaya Statistika = Theory of Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Moscow, Izdatelstvo Yurayt Publ., 2016. 479 p. (In Russ.).
3. Volkov Ye.A. Chislennyye Metody = Numerical Methods. Studies'. the Manual for High Schools. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1987. 248 p. (In Russ.).
4. Calculator Online. Probability Theory. The Method of Least Squares. URL: https://www.kontrolnaya-rabota.ru/s/teoriya-veroyatnosti/method-naimenshih-kvadratov/ (Date Accessed 12.03.2019) (In Russ.).
5. Kalnitskiy S.A., YAkubovskiy-Lipskiy Yu.O., Tikhonov M.N. Risk Meditsinskogo Oblucheniya Naseleniya = The Risk of Medical Exposure of the Population. Yadernoye obshchestvo. 2007;4-6:53-62 (In Russ.).
6. The Largest Radiation Accidents and Catastrophes in the World. Help URL: https://ria.ru/20110312/347505544.html (In Russ.).
7. Zavorotnyy A.G. Osobennosti Vedeniya Avariyno-Spasatelnykh i Drugikh Neotlozhnykh Rabot na Radioaktivno-Zagryaznennoy Mestnosti = Features of Conducting Emergency Rescue and Other Urgent Work in Radioactively Contaminated Areas. Monograph. Moscow, Publ., 2014. 292 p. (In Russ.).
8. Chernobyl: the True Extent of the Accident (International Atomic Energy Agency. World Health Organization). Yadernoye obshchestvo. 2006;2-3:11-18 (In Russ.).
9. Kharisov G.Kh. Osnovy Obespecheniya Bezopasnosti Zhiznedeyatelnosti Cheloveka = Fundamentals of Ensuring the Safety of Human Life. Lecture Course. Moscow, Publ., 2005. 89 p. (In Russ.).
10. Ivanov V.K., Kaydalov O.V., Kashcheyeva P.V., et al. Assessment of Individual Radiation Risks in Different Scenarios of Occupational Chronic Exposure. Radiatsiya i Risk = Radiation and Risk. 2008;17;2:9-28 (In Russ.).
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The author declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Article received: 17.07.2021.
Accepted for publication: 05.09.2021
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021. Vol. 66. № 5. P. 11–17
On the Dose Coefficient of Uranium Hexafluoride
S.P. Babenko1, A.V. Bad'in2
1N.E. Bauman Moscow State Technical University, Moscow, Russia
2Department of Physics, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: Andrey Valentinovich Bad’in: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Uranium hexafluoride (UF6, UHF) is a gaseous product containing uranium and fluorine. Once in the air, it interacts with water vapor and produces hydrolysis products that can penetrate the human body and lead to the chemical effects of uranium and fluorine, as well as the radiation effects of uranium on the body. This action can be very strong and therefore serious attention has been paid to its study for a long time.
Purpose: Quantitative calculation of the radiation effects of uranium on humans and their analysis in the conditions of daily work at nuclear power plants, as well as in emergency situations.
Material and methods: We consider uranium hexafluoride that appears under certain conditions in the air of the working rooms of some enterprises and describes methods for describing the distribution of UHF hydrolysis products to objects that can sense their effects. All these methods are combined into a single integrated model. The analytical expressions obtained in the framework of this model at various stages are given, which make it possible to calculate the radiation effect of UHF.
Results: The calculated values of the characteristics of the radiation exposure are given, their analysis is carried out. The conditions are formulated under which there is a danger of serious radiation exposure of uranium hexafluoride to employees of nuclear power plants during everyday work and in emergency situations.
Conclusion: Based on all the material presented, it is concluded that the constructed mathematical model reliably describes the event in question and allows us to calculate the radiation effect of uranium on humans.
Key words: uranium hexafluoride, hydrolysis products, inhalation intake, percutaneous intake, mathematical model
For citation: Babenko SP, Bad'in AV. On the Dose Coefficient of Uranium Hexafluoride. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021;66(5):11–17.
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2021-66-5-11-17
References
1. Davis L. Terrorism and Violence. Terror and Disaster. Smolensk, Rusich Publ., 1998 (In Russian).
2. Nadezhdinskiy A.I., Nabiev Sh.Sh., Grigor’ev G.Yu, et al. Express Methods for Measuring the Degree of Enrichment of Uranium Hexafluoride and Trace Amounts And Hf in the Atmosphere Based on Near And Middle Ir Diode Lasers. Optika Atmosfery i Okeana. 2005;18;9:785–794 (In Russian).
3. Howland J.W. Pharmacology and Toxicology of Uranium Compounds. Studies on Human Exposures to Uranium Compounds. Ed. Voegtlin C., Hodge H.C. New York, Toronto, London, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1949. P. 993–1017.
4. Guidelines for the Organization of Medical Care for Persons Exposed to Ionizing Radiation. Ed. Ilyin L.A. Moscow, Energoatomizdat Publ., 1986 (In Russian).
5. Gasteva G.N., Bad’in V.I., Molokanov A.A., Mordasheva V.V. Clinical Toxicology of Chemical Compounds of Uranium at Chronic Exposure. Nuclear medicine. V. II. Radiation Injury Man. Ed. Ilyin L.A Moscow. IzdAT Publ., 2001. P. 369–388 (In Russian).
6. Gasteva G.N., Babenko S.P., Badin V.I. Deterministic Effects in Nuclear Industry Workers. Computer Science, Information Technology, Applied Physics: Sat. Scientific Papers of The Scientific Session of MEPhI-2001. Moscow Publ., 2001, Vol. 13. P. 124–125 (In Russian).
7. Gusev N.G. Handbook of Radiation and Protection. Moscow, Medgiz Publ., 1956 (In Russian).
8. Sanitary Rules and Regulations SanPiN 2.6.1.2523-09. Radiation Safety Standards NRB-99/2009. Moscow Publ., 2009 (In Russian).
9. Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 30 (Part 1). Ann. ICRP. 1979;2 (3-4).
10. Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 30 (Part 2). Ann. ICRP 1980; 4 (3-4).
11. Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 30 (Part 3). Ann. ICRP 1981; 6 (2-3).
12. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Ann. ICRP 1991; 21 (1-3).
13. Radiation and skin. Materials of the Symposium, Great Britain, 1963. Moscow, Atomizdat Publ., 1969 (In Russian).
14. Babenko S.P., Bad’in A.V. Inhaler Injection and Injection Through Skin of Toxic Substances in a Human Organism Under Regular Industry Conditions at Factories of Nuclear Industry. Matematicheskoe modelirovanie. 2006;18;3:13–22 (In Russian).
15. Babenko S.P., Bad’in A.V. Verification of a Mathematical Model that Describes the Action of Uranium Hexafluoride on The Human Body in Facilities of the Atomic Industry. Moscow University Physics Bulletin. 2014;69;2:124–133 (In Russian). DOI: 10.3103/S0027134914020040.
16. Babenko S.P., Bad’in A.V., Ovchinnikov A.V. About the Possibility of Accelerated Medical Care for People After A Single Exposure to Uranium Hexafluoride.
Hygiene and Sanitation. 2018;97;3:213–219 (In Russian). DOI: 10.18821/0016-9900-2018-97-3-213-219.
17. Mirkhaydarov A.Kh. Method and Means for Measuring Uranium Hexafluoride in the Air. The Radioactivity in Nuclear Explosions and Accidents. St. Petersburg, Gidrometeoizdat Publ., 2000 (In Russian).
18. Dose Coefficients for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 68. Ann. ICRP. 1994;24 (4).
19. Leggett R.W., Pellmar T.C. The Biokinetics of Uranium Migrating from Embedded DU Fragments. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 2003;64;2–3:205–225.
20. Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 66. Ann. ICRP. 1994;24;1–3.
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.
Article received: 16.03.2021.
Accepted for publication: 21.04.2021.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021. Vol. 66. № 5. P. 5–10
Influence of Powerful Non-Ionizing Terahertz Radiation
on Healthy and Tumor Human Cells of Neural Origin
R.O. Shatalova1, S.A. Gurova1, V.A. Revkova2, I.V. Ilina3, D.S. Sitnikov3
1National Research Nuclear University, MEPhi Obninsk Institute for Nuclear Power Engineering, Obninsk, Russia
2Federal Research and Clinical Center of Specialized Medical Care and Medical Technologies, Moscow, Russia
3Joint Institute for High Temperatures, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: Dmitry Sergeevich Sitnikov: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Study of the influence of high-power pulses of coherent non-ionizing terahertz (THz) radiation on the formation of foci of double-strand DNA breaks and the proliferative activity of human neuronal cells.
Material and methods: Irradiated cell cultures are direct reprogramming neural progenitor cells (drNPCs), neuroblastoma cells (SK-N-BE). Cells are irradiated with a sequence of THz radiation pulses with a peak intensity of ~ 20 GW/cm2 and electric field strength of 2.8 MV/cm. Irradiation lasts 30 mins.
Results: There is no statistically significant difference in the number of γH2AX histone foci between experimental and control cell groups.
Conclusion: It was shown that a short exposure (30 min) of cells to THz radiation with intensity of 20 GW/cm2 does not affect the proliferative activity of both neural progenitor cells and neuroblastoma cells and does not cause a significant increase in γH2AX foci in any of the studied cell lines.
Key words: non-ionizing radiation, terahertz radiation, H2AX histone foci, proliferative activity, neural stem cells, SK-N-BE neuroblastoma
For citation: Shatalova RO, Gurova SA, Revkova VA, Ilina IV, Sitnikov DS. Influence of Powerful Non-Ionizing Terahertz Radiation on Healthy and Tumor Human Cells of Neural Origin. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021;66(5):5–10.
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2021-66-5-5-10
References
1. Fröhlich H. Long-range coherence and energy storage in biological systems. Int J Quantum Chem. 1968;2(5):641–9. DOI: 10.1002/qua.560020505.
2. Alexandrov BS, Gelev V, Bishop AR, Usheva A, Rasmussen KØ. DNA breathing dynamics in the presence of a terahertz field. Phys Lett A. 2010;374(10):1214–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.physleta.2009.12.077.
3. Titova LV, Ayesheshim AK, Golubov A, Rodriguez-Juarez R, Woycicki R, Hegmann FA, et al. Intense THz pulses down-regulate genes associated with skin cancer and psoriasis: a new therapeutic avenue? Sci Rep. 2013;3(1):2363. DOI: 10.1038/srep02363.
4. Ольшевская ЮС, Козлов АС, Петров АК, Запара ТА, Ратушняк АС. Влияние на нейроны in vitro терагерцового (субмиллиметрового) лазерного излучения. Журнал высшей нервной деятельности им. И.П. Павлова. 2009;59(3):353–9.[Olshevskaya YUS, Kozlov AS, Petrov AK, Zapara TA, Ratushnyak AS. Effect of Terahertz (Submillimeter) Laser Radiation on Neurons in Vitro. Journal of Higher Nervous Activity. I.P. Pavlova. 2009; 59 (3): 353-9.]
5. Zapara TA, Treskova SP, Ratushniak AS. Effect of antioxidants on the interaction of terahertz (submillimeter) laser radiation and neuronal membrane. J Surf Investig. 2015;9(5):869–71.
6. Cheon H, Paik JH, Choi M, Yang HJ, Son JH. Detection and manipulation of methylation in blood cancer DNA using terahertz radiation. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–10. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-42855-x.
7. Tan SZ, Tan PC, Luo LQ, Chi YL, Yang ZL, Zhao XL, et al. Exposure Effects of Terahertz Waves on Primary Neurons and Neuron-like Cells Under Nonthermal Conditions. Biomed Environ Sci. 2019;32(10):739–54. DOI: 10.3967/bes2019.094.
8. Perera PGT, Appadoo DRT, Cheeseman S, Wandiyanto J V, Linklater D, Dekiwadia C, et al. PC 12 pheochromocytoma cell response to super high frequency terahertz radiation from synchrotron source. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(2):1–17. DOI: 10.3390/cancers11020162.
9. Maskey D, Pradhan J, Aryal B, Lee C-M, Choi I-Y, Park K-S, et al. Chronic 835-MHz radiofrequency exposure to mice hippocampus alters the distribution of calbindin and GFAP immunoreactivity. Brain Res. 2010;1346(Maskey2010):237–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.05.045.
10. Rogakou EP, Boon C, Redon C, Bonner WM. Megabase Chromatin Domains Involved in DNA Double-Strand Breaks in Vivo. J Cell Biol. 1999;146(5):905–16. DOI: 10.1083/jcb.146.5.905.
11. Barnes JL, Zubair M, John K, Poirier MC, Martin FL. Carcinogens and DNA damage. Biochem Soc Trans. 2018 Oct 19;46(5):1213–24. DOI: 10.1042/BST20180519.
12. Sitnikov DS, Ilina I V, Pronkin AA. Experimental system for studying bioeffects of intense terahertz pulses with electric field strength up to 3.5 MV/cm. Opt Eng. 2020;59(06):061613. DOI: 10.1117/1.OE.59.6.061613.full
13. Овчинников АВ, Чефонов ОВ, Ситников ДС, Ильина ИВ, Ашитков СИ, Агранат МБ, Источник терагерцевого излучения с напряженностью электрического поля свыше 1 МВ/см на основе фемтосекундного хром-форстеритового лазера с частотой следования импульсов 100 Гц. Квантовая электроника. 2018;48(6):554–8. [Ovchinnikov AV, Chefonov OV, Sitnikov DS, Il’ina I V, Ashitkov SI, Agranat MB. A source of THz radiation with electric field strength of more than 1 MV cm-1 on the basis of 100-Hz femtosecond Cr : forsterite laser system. Quantum Electron. 2018;48(6):554–8. (In Russian) DOI: 10.1070/ qel16681].
14. Sitnikov DS, Romashevskiy SA, Ovchinnikov A V, Chefonov O V, Savel’ev AB, Agranat MB. Estimation of THz field strength by an electro-optic sampling technique using arbitrary long gating pulses. Laser Phys Lett. 2019;16(11):115302. DOI: 10.1088/1612-202X/ab4d56.
15. Ситников ДС, Ильина ИВ, Гурова СА, Шаталова РО, Ревкова ВА. Исследование индукции двунитевых разрывов в фибробластах кожи человека терагерцевым излучением высокой интенсивности. Известия Российской Академии Наук Серия Физическая. 2020;84:1605–16. DOI: 10.31857/s0367676520110277. [Sitnikov DS, Ilina I V, Gurova SA, Shatalova RO, Revkova VA. Studying the Induction of Double-Strand Breaks in Human Fibroblasts by High-Intensity Terahertz Radiation. Bull Russ Acad Sci Phys. 2020;84(11):1370–4. (In Russian) DOI: 10.3103/S1062873820 110-246].
16. Dhuppar S, Roy S, Mazumder A. γH2AX in the S Phase after UV Irradiation Corresponds to DNA Replication and Does Not Report on the Extent of DNA Damage. Mol Cell Biol. 2020;40(20). DOI: 10.1128/MCB.00328-20.
17. Bourge M, Fort C, Soler M, Satiat‐Jeunemaître B, Brown SC. A pulse-chase strategy combining click‐EdU and photoconvertible fluorescent reporter: tracking Golgi protein dynamics during the cell cycle. New Phytol. 2015;205(2):938–50. DOI: 10.1111/nph.13069.
18. Yu T, MacPhail SH, Banáth JP, Klokov D, Olive PL. Endogenous expression of phosphorylated histone H2AX in tumors in relation to DNA double-strand breaks and genomic instability. DNA Repair (Amst). 2006;5(8):935–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2006.05.040.
19. Sitnikov DS, Ilina I V., Revkova VA, Konoplyannikov MA, Kalsin VA, Baklaushev VP. Effect of high-power pulses of terahertz radiation on cell viability. In: 2020 International Conference Laser Optics (ICLO). IEEE; 2020. p. 1. DOI: 10.1109/ICLO48556.2020.9285431.
20. Nagelkerke A, Span PN. Staining Against Phospho-H2AX (γ-H2AX) as a Marker for DNA Damage and Genomic Instability in Cancer Tissues and Cells. In: Koumenis C, Coussens LM, Giaccia A, Hammond E, editors. Tumor Microenvironment. Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 1–10. PMID: 27325258 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-26666-4_1
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The studies were carried out using the UNU "Laser terawatt femtosecond complex", which is part of the Center for Collective Use "Laser femtosecond complex" of the Joint Institute for High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences with the financial support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research within the framework of scientific project No. 19-02-00762.
Contribution. Development of the research concept and assembly of the experimental scheme - D. Sitnikov;
development of research design, work with cell culture, study of THz exposure - Revkova VA;
conducting experiments on irradiation of cells - Sitnikov D.S., Ilyina I.V., Gurova S.A., Shatalova R.O.,
statistical data processing - Gurova S.A., Shatalova R.O.,
writing and scientific editing of text - all authors.
Article received: 16.03.2021.
Accepted for publication: 21.04.2021.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021. Vol. 66. № 5. P. 18–22
The Ratio of the Extraversion and Fluid Intelligence Levels as a Predictor of the Operators’ Successful Professional Activity
A.A. Kosenkov
A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: Aleksandr Kosenkov: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Results: To study the relationship between the ratio of the extraversion and fluid intelligence levels with the success of the professional activity of the nuclear power plants (NPP) operators.
Material and methods: This paper analyzes the results of psychodiagnostic examinations of operators of main control rooms of NPPs that functioned under normal conditions. All individuals were administered the J. Raven's “Progressive matrices”, the Russian language adaptation of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF, form A). Cross-peer review using the ranking method identified 5 groups of operators with different levels of professional success (from markedly reduced to high).
Results: Using factor analysis, the dimension of the data matrix obtained during the surveys was reduced. Correlation analysis showed that out of 9 identified factors, only 2 had a statistically significant correlation with the success of professional activity, namely, the factors of extraversion (negative relationship) and intelligence (positive relationship). Based on these two factors, an automatic classification of operators was carried out using cluster analysis, as a result of which 5 classes of operators were identified. It was shown that classes A and B with a predominance of the extraversion factor included mainly (79 %) operators with a level of professional success below average. On the contrary, classes C, D and E with a predominance of the intelligence factor consisted mainly (81 %) of operators with average and above average levels of professional success. It is noteworthy that the average value of intelligence factor in one of the classes consisting of operators, advantageously with lower professional success rate (class B) was the same or even 10 T-scores higher in comparison with the classes represented mainly by operators whose success rate was assessed from medium to high.
Conclusion: Factors of extraversion and intelligence are associated with the quality of performance of professional duties by the NPP control room operators under normal operating conditions. At the same time, the success of their professional activity depends not so much on the quantitative values for these factors, but on their ratio, namely: the predominance of the intelligence factor is prognostically favorable.
Key words: nuclear power plant, operators, main control room, extraversion, intelligence, success of professional activity,
psychological professional selection
For citation: Kosenkov AA. The Ratio of the Extraversion and Fluid Intelligence Levels as a Predictor of the Operators’ Successful Professional Activity. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety 2021;66(5):18-22.
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2021-66-5-18-22
References
1. Atroshenko YK. Automated Control Systems for Nuclear Power Plants: Textbook. YK Atroshenko, EV Ivanova; Tomsk Polytechnic University. Tomsk: Publishing House of the Tomsk Polytechnic University, 2014. (In Russian).
2. Duel MA, Kanyuk MI. Automation of Technological Processes and its Impact on the Efficiency of Energy Production at TOPs and NPPs. Eastern European Journal of Advanced Technologies. 2011;5;8;53:15-22. (In Russian).
3. Kosenkov AA. Psychological Factors of Professional Success of Nuclear Power Plant Main Control Room Operators. Saratov journal of Medical Scientific Research. 2014;10;4:758-61. (In Russian).
4. Cattell RB. Intelligence: Its Structure, Growth and Action. New York: Elsevier Publ. 1987.
5. Plomin R, von Stumm S. The New Genetics of Intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2018;19;3:148-159. DOI:10.1038/nrg.2017.104.
6. Eysenck HJ. Personality, Genetics and Behavior: Selected Papers. New York: Praeger Publ. 1982.
7. Frager RD, Fadiman J. Personality: Theories, Experiments, Exercises. St. Petersburg: Prime-Evroznak Publ., 2004. Pp. 608. (In Russian).
8. Bodrov VA. Psychology of Professional Activity. Theoretical and Applied Problems. Moscow: The Institute of Psychology RAN Publ., 2006. Pp. 623. (In Russian).
9. Cattell RB, Horn JL. A check on the Theory of Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence with Description of New Subtest Designs. Journal of Educational Measurement. 1978;15;3:139–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984. 1978.tb00065.x.
10. Tews MJ, Michel JW, Lyons BD. Beyond Personality: The Impact of Gma on Performance for Entry‐Level Service Employees", Journal of Service Management. 2010;21;3:344-362. https://doi.org/10.1108 /09564231011050797.
11. Stasielowicz L. How Important is Cognitive Ability When Adapting to Changes? A Meta-Analysis of the Performance Adaptation Literature. Personality and Individual Differences, 2020; 166;1, 110178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110178.
12. Mishkevich AM. Extraversion in Various Personality Theories. Penza Psychological Bulletin. 2019;1;12:52-69. (In Russian).
13. Blickle G, Meurs JA, Wihler A, Ewen C, Merkl R, Missfeld T, Extraversion and Job Performance: How Context Relevance and Bandwidth Specificity Create A Non-Linear, Positive, and Asymptotic Relationship, Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2015;87:80-88, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jvb.2014.12.009.
14. Grant AM, Schwartz B. Too Much of a Good Thing: The challenge and Opportunity of the Inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2011;6:61-76.
15. Pierce JR, Aguinis H. The Too-Much-of-a-Good-Thing Effect in Management. Journal of Management, 2013;39:313–338. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0149206311410060
16. Kumar D, Kapila A. Problem Solving as a Function of Extraversion and Masculinity. Personality and Individual Differences. 1987;8;1:129-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(87)90020-1.
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The author declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. Article was prepared by one author
Article received: 23.12.2020.
Accepted for publication: 20.01.2021.