Mutagenesis vol. 19 no. 6 © UK Environmental Mutagen Society 2004; all rights reserved.
Measuring the genetic damage in cancer patients during radiotherapy with three genetic end-points
1Zhejiang University Medical College, Institute of Occupational and Environmental Health, Hangzhou 310006, Zhejiang and 2Jiaxing University Medical College, Jiaxing, 314001, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
In this paper the genetic damage for three genetic end-points was studied in cancer patients during radiotherapy using the micronucleus test, comet assay and hprt gene mutation test. The subjects were from: (i) a group of 24 patients suffering from various types of cancers; (ii) a group of 23 controls matched according to age, sex and smoking. Blood samples were collected from the controls and from the cancer patients prior to radiotherapy and after cumulative radiation doses of 10, 30 and 50 Gy. The results of the micronucleus test indicated that the mean micronuclei rate (MNR) and mean micronucleated cells rate (MCR) in the cancer patients prior to radiotherapy were 12.46 and 11.29
, respectively, which were significantly higher than those (6.65 and 5.96) in controls (P < 0.01). However, the results of the comet assay and hprt gene mutation test showed no significant difference between untreated cancer patients and controls (P > 0.05). The mean MNR/MCR at 0, 10, 30 and 50 Gy in cancer patients increased with the cumulative dose, being 12.46, 35.83, 64.63 and 85.00 for MNR and 11.29, 31.25, 53.63 and 67.28 for MCR, respectively. Similar results were obtained in the comet assay and hprt gene mutation test. Meanwhile, it was found that there was inter-individual variability in response to radiotherapy among patients. |
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Ionizing radiation is widely and successfully used in oncology. The recent progress in cancer radiotherapy has improved the prognosis of cancer patients, but in turn it has brought complications (Sawada et al., 1998
). Ionizing radiation primarily targets DNA molecules and produces an array of lesions that include single-strand breaks, base alterations (oxidative damage) and double-strand breaks (Li et al., 2001). Attention has focused on secondary cancer following radiotherapy, for which the risk is substantial (Byrne, 1999). There are studies of second tumors induced by radiotherapy for cervix, breast and childhood cancers, as well as for benign diseases of the skin, breast, stomach and female genital tract (Hendry, 2001).
In addition, patient-to-patient variability in response to radiotherapy can be observed even when the same treatment regimen is applied. Both patient- and therapy-related factors as well as intrinsic factors of individual radiosensitivity are considered to influence the variability of side-effects observed (Twardella et al., 2003). There is increasing evidence showing that the major factors determining these differences are related to intrinsic biological factors. Thus, the ability to predict the determinants of these differences would have important implications with regard to cancer treatment (Ruiz de Almodóvar et al., 2002), which would permit an individualization of radiotherapy dose to optimize results.
Therefore, simple and informative techniques to measure cytogenetic and molecular damage would be greatly valuable in studying genetic risk during radiotherapy. When physical dosimetry is unreliable, biological dosimetry based on the level of induced DNA strand breaks, chromosomal damage and gene mutations could be used (Cao et al., 2002). Determination of the most extensively used biomarkers involves cytogenetic methods (evaluation of chromosomal aberrations and/or sister chromatid exchange in mitogen-stimulated cells) or biochemical and immunological techniques, but these expensive and time-consuming methods are not suitable for large-scale study (Colleu-Durel et al., 2004).
To meet the challenge described above, in the present study three genetic end-points, i.e. chromosomal damage (micronucleus test), gene mutation (hprt gene mutation test) and DNA single-strand break (comet assay), were utilized to study: (i) whether there is a difference in background genetic damage between patients with various cancers and controls; (ii) whether there is a dose–response relationship between radiation dose and genetic damage in patients during radiotherapy; (iii) in spite of the small size of the sample, whether there is inter-individual variance in response to radiation.
|
Materials and methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Subjects and blood sample collection
The peripheral blood was from 23 controls and 24 patients with various cancers in the same hospital. The cancer group without other complications consisted of 8 males and 16 females from 35 to 79 years old (mean age 55.5 years). The control group consisted of 7 males and 16 females from 27 to 85 years old (mean age 56.1 years). The general situation of cancer patients and controls is listed in Table I, which shows no significant differences between the cancer patient and control groups for sex, age and smoking habit. The blood samples of cancer patients were collected before and during radiotherapy at cumulative doses of 10, 30 and 50. Five patients (nos 1, 9, 14, 21 and 24) did not receive treatment at a cumulative dose of 50 Gy.
|
Cytokinesis block micronucleus (CBMN) assay
The micronucleus test was conducted according to the method of Fenech and Morley (1985)
. Briefly, whole blood (0.5 ml) was added to RPMI 1640 (4.5 ml) (Gibco) containing 20% fetal calf serum and phytohaemagglutinin M (0.2 mg/ml) (PHA-M) (Gibco). Two independent cultures were incubated at 37°C for 72 h. Cytochalasin B (4.5 µg/ml) (Sigma) was added to each culture 28 h before harvesting cells. The cultures were harvested 72 h after initiation by centrifugation. Cells were then processed on the basis of the method described by Fenech and Morley (1985) as modified to enable the use of whole blood cultures. The lymphocytes were subjected to mild hypotonic treatment (0.075 M KCl) for 5 min, then fixed in fresh fixative solution (3:1 methanol:acetic acid) for 20 min. This fixation step was repeated twice after 20 min storage at 4°C. The cells were smeared on microscope slides, air dried and stained for 10 min with 10% Giemsa solution, pH 6.8. 1000 binucleated lymphocytes (500 cells per culture) were scored under light microscopy (400x magnification). The micronuclei and micronucleated cells were detected according to the criteria described by Fenech (2000). All the slides were examined by the same person. Micronucleated cell rate (MCR) and micronucleus rate (MNR), i.e. number of micronucleated cells and number of micronuclei per 1000 binucleated lymphocytes, respectively, served as indicators. Meanwhile, the nuclear division index (NDI) was calculated on the basis of the following formula (Zhang et al., 2002):
 |
Statistical analyses used the Wilcoxon rank sum test and repeated measures ANOVA was applied to test the association between radiation dose and MNR or MCR. The statistical analysis was performed with the program SPSS 11.0 for Windows.
Comet assay
Human lymphocytes were isolated by the procedure described by Zhang et al. (2002) and were resuspended in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Following isolation, the cells were mixed with 0.4% Trypan blue solution. After 15 min the cells were counted and checked for viability. The remaining cells were immediately used for single cell gel electrophoresis. The assay was performed basically according to Singh et al. (1988). Roughened slides were cleaned with 100% ethanol and air dried. Two solutions, of 0.5% normal melting point agarose and 0.5% low melting point agarose, were prepared in Ca2+- and Mg2+-free PBS. An aliquot of 100 µl of normal melting point agarose was used for the first layer, while 75 µl of low melting point agarose+10 µl of PBS cell suspension (10 000 cells) was used for the second layer. Finally, the third layer of 75 µl of low melting point agarose was added. Slides were immersed in freshly prepared lysis solution (1% sodium sarcosinate, 2.5 M NaCl, 100 mM Na2EDTA, 10 mM Tris–HCl, pH 10, 1% Triton X-100 and 10% DMSO) at 4°C for 1 h. Then the slides were placed in a horizontal electrophoresis unit covered with fresh buffer (1 mM Na2EDTA, 300 mM NaOH, pH 13) for 20 min to allow DNA unwinding and expression of alkali-labile sites. Electrophoresis was conducted for 20 min at 20 V and 300 mA. The above treatments were performed in an ice bath. Subsequently, slides were washed gently three times in neutralization buffer (0.4 M Tris–HCl, pH 7.5) to remove alkali and detergent. Each slide was stained with 50 µl of ethidium bromide (20 µg/ml). All the above steps were conducted under yellow light to prevent additional DNA damage.
Observations were made at 400x magnification using a fluorescence microscope (Olympus, BX51) equipped with a 530 nm excitation filter, a 590 nm emission filter, a camera (Olympus DP50) and a computer-based image analysis system (Media Cybernetics, USA). The data were based on 50 randomly selected cells per sample, i.e. 25 cells from each of the two replicate slides. The mean tail length and mean tail moment served as indicators. Statistical analyses used the Wilcoxon rank sum test in the program SPSS 11.0 for Windows. Repeated measures ANOVA was applied to test the association between radiation dose and mean tail length (MTL) or mean tail moment (MTM).
The hprt gene mutation test
The hprt gene mutation test was performed according to Cao et al. (2002). Two sets of cultures were prepared, each set of culture containing 0.5 ml of heparinized blood and 4.5 ml of RPMI 1640 with 20% fetal calf serum and 0.2 mg/ml PHA-M. One set of cultures was added with 0.2 mM 6-thioguanine (Sigma). After 33 h incubation cytochalasin B (final concentration 4.5 µg/ml) was added to the two sets of cultures. After 72 h incubation lymphocytes were harvested by centrifugation and fixed with methanol:acetic acid (3:1). Slides were prepared and stained with 10% Giemsa solution, pH 6.8. Binucleated and multinucleated cells per 1000 lymphocytes in the two sets of cultures were scored under light microscopy (400x magnification). Mutant frequency of the hprt gene (Mf-hprt) was calculated using the following formula:
|
|
Statistical analyses used the Wilcoxon rank sum test and the repeated measures ANOVA was applied to test the association between radiation dose and Mfs-hprt. The statistical analysis was performed with the program SPSS 11.0 for Windows.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The results of micronucleus test, comet assay and hprt gene mutation test in untreated cancer patients and controls
Table II indicates the results of the CBMN test, comet assay and hprt gene mutation test in 24 untreated cancer patients and 23 controls. In the CBMN test, the ranges of MNRs in 23 controls and 24 untreated cancer patients were 0–16 and 3–29
, respectively, while the mean MNRs were 6.65 ± 0.82 and 12.46 ± 1.36, respectively. The mean MNR of untreated cancer patients was significantly higher than that of the controls (P < 0.01). The ranges of MCRs of controls and untreated cancer patients were 0–14 and 3–25, respectively. The average MCR of patients was 11.29 ± 1.22, which was significantly higher than that (5.96 ± 0.70) of controls (P < 0.01). The distribution of micronuclei per cell and the NDIs of controls and patients are listed in Table III. The NDIs of controls and untreated cancer patients were 1.90 and 1.81, respectively. In the comet assay, DNA damage of lymphocytes was shown by tail length and tail moment. The MTL and the MTM were 1.77 ± 0.10 µm and 0.37 ± 0.04 in untreated cancer patients, respectively, while the MTL and MTM in controls were 1.81 ± 0.07 µm and 0.41 ± 0.03, respectively. No significant differences between the untreated cancer patient group and the control group were found for these two indicators (P > 0.05). In the hprt gene mutation test the mutant frequency of the hprt gene (Mf-hprt) was used as an indicator. The average Mf-hprt in untreated cancer patients was 0.82 ± 0.02, which was not significantly higher than that (0.79 ± 0.03) in controls (P > 0.05).
|
|
Micronucleus test in cancer patients during radiotherapy
The results of the CBMN test in 24 cancer patients during radiotherapy are presented in Table III. It was found that MNR and MCR increased with cumulative radiation dose (0, 10, 30 and 50 Gy) for each patient and that the average MNRs and MCRs were significantly elevated with incresed cumulative radiation dose. The average MNRs at 0, 10, 30 and 50 Gy were 12.46, 35.83, 64.63 and 85.00
, respectively. The average MCRs at 0, 10, 30 and 50 Gy were 11.29, 31.25, 53.63 and 67.28 , respectively. The average MCR and MNR at 10, 30 and 50 Gy were significantly elevated as compared with those at 0 Gy (P < 0.01). The dose–response relationships for MCR and MNR are shown in Figure 1. Table III shows that the NDIs of cancer patients decreased with radiation dose, being 1.81, 1.72, 1.60 and 1.54, respectively.
|
Comet assay in cancer patients during radiotherapy
Table IV displays the results of the comet assay as MTL and MTM in 24 cancer patients during radiotherapy. The MTLs and MTMs at 10, 30 and 50 Gy were significantly higher than the MTL and MTM at 0 Gy for each patient. The average MTLs of 24 cancer patients at 10, 30, 50 Gy were 1.96, 2.26 and 2.63 µm, respectively, which were significantly higher than that (1.77) at 0 Gy (P < 0.05). A similar phenomenon was observed when MTM acted as the indicator, the average MTMs of 24 cancer patients at 10, 30, 50 Gy being 0.43, 0.56 and 0.70, respectively, which were significantly higher than that (0.37) at 0 Gy (P < 0.05). The dose–response relationships for MTL and MTM are shown in Figure 2.
|
|
hprt gene mutation test in cancer patients during radiotherapy
Mf-hprt for 24 cancer patients during radiotherapy are shown in Table V. Mf-hprt of each patient increased with radiotherapy dose. The average Mf-hprt of 24 cancer patients were 0.91 ± 0.03, 1.07 ± 0.05 and 1.15 ± 0.05
at radiation doses of 10, 30 and 50 Gy, respectively, which were significantly higher than that (0.82 ± 0.02) at 0 Gy (P < 0.01). The dose–response relationship is shown in Figure 3.
|
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The baselines for three end-points and chromosomal instability of 24 cancer patients
Cytogenetic methods have been used extensively to monitor baseline genetic damage in healthy donors (Kubota et al., 2000
) and cancer patients prior to therapy (Sawada et al., 1998; Gil et al., 2000; Colleu-Durel et al., 2004). Human tumours are characterized by numerical and structural chromosomal alterations and chromosomal instability. Chromosomal instability is the occurrence of gains and losses of whole chromosomes or chromosomal segments at an increased rate in a population of cells (Gollin, 2004). In the present study genetic damage in 24 patients with various cancers was detected for three end-points. The results of the CBMN test showed that the MCR and MNR of cancer patients were significantly higher than those of controls. However, the results of the comet assay and hprt gene mutation test were negative. The biological significance of the three tests is different. DNA single-strand and double-strand breaks and alkali-labile sites can be detected by the alkaline comet assay (Kopjar et al., 2002); the hprt gene mutation test is used to detect somatic cell mutation (Kubota et al., 2000); the CBMN test is utilized to measure micronuclei, which originate mainly from chromosome break or whole chromosomes that fail to engage with the mitotic spindle when the cell divides (Fenech, 2002). So, an increased MCR or MNR reflects chromosomal instability of human peripheral lymphocytes in cancer patients. It was found that the results of the CBMN and hprt gene mutation tests in our study were similar to those of previous studies. Baciuchka-Palmaro et al. (2002) reported that the MCR and MNR in 10 untreated patients with different kinds of cancers were 19.0 and 21.75, respectively, which were significantly higher than those (9.2 and 11.1) in 10 healthy controls. Venkatachalam et al. (1999) studied the frequency of micronulei in 25 patients with various cancers and Palyvoda et al. (2003) detected the level of micronuclei in a head and neck cancer patient group, and obtained similar results. Sawada et al. (1998) discovered that the mutant frequency at the hprt gene in 32 children with various malignancies before radiotherapy were well within the range for non-exposed healthy controls. Zwingmann et al. (1999) also reported similar results in 23 patients with solid malignancies at various sites. However, our results for 24 cancer patients using the comet assay were inconsistent with the results reported by other studies. Kopjar et al. (2002), Palyvoda et al. (2003) and Colleu-Durel et al. (2004) found that the level of background DNA damage measured by the comet assay in untreated cancer patients was significantly higher than that in controls. The contradictory comet assay results between our experiment and these other studies may be due to the sample (size, cancer type, etc.). Hence, in future investigations the number of patients will be increased and only one or two types of cancers will be studied.
Change at three end-points of cancer patients during radiotherapy
Genetic damage induced by radiotherapy in cancer patients has been detected using different tests in several previous investigations (Barber et al., 2000; Jagetia et al., 2001; Cao et al., 2002; Ruiz de Almodóvar et al., 2002; Borgmann et al., 2002; Twardella et al., 2003). Jagetia et al. (2001) found a 3-fold enhancement of the micronucleus frequency in patients with various cancers after radiotherapy (at a dose of 66 Gy), without a dose–response relationship. Cao et al. (2002) reported similar results, with the mean micronucleus frequency in patients with nasopharyngeal cancer increasing 2.5-fold after radiotherapy (at a dose of 68 Gy), with a linear dose–effect relationship. The results of the CBMN test in our experiment showed that the mean MCRs and MNRs of patients with various cancers (at doses of 10, 30 and 50 Gy) increased 2.8-, 4.8- and 6.0-fold and 2.9-, 5.2- and 6.8-fold, respectively, after radiotherapy, with a clear dose–response relationship. Moreover, the mean NDIs decreased with radiotherapy dose, which suggested that division of human lymphocytes was reduced. The comet assay is usually utilized to measure genetic damage induced by radiotherapy. The investigation of Cao et al. (2002) showed that the average MTL increased only 1.75-fold in 9 patients with nasopharyngeal cancer after radiotherapy (at a dose of 68 Gy), without an obvious dose–response relationship. In our study the mean MTL and MTM of cancer patients after radiotherapy (at doses of 10, 30 and 50 Gy) increased 1.1-, 1.3- and 1.5-fold and 1.2-, 1.5- and 1.9-fold, respectively, and showed a dose–response relationship. In addition, Zwingmann et al. (1999) reported a 7-fold increase in mean Mf-hprt in cancer patients after radiotherapy (at a dose of 61 Gy); Cao et al. (2002) found that the average Mf-hpr of 9 cancer patients increased 3-fold after radiotherapy (at a dose of 68 Gy). However, in the present study the mean Mf-hpr of 24 cancer patients increased 1.1-, 1.3- and 1.4-fold, respectively, after radiotherapy (at doses of 10, 30 and 50 Gy). As shown above, the indices for three end-points increased with radiotherapy dose in our investigation, so it is felt that indices at three end-points can serve as biomarkers for radiation exposure. Moreover, the three end-points have different biological significances. Although clinical irradiation doses were used as exposure doses in this study, the irradiated volume for different patients should also be considered, because the patients did not all have the same type of cancer.
Inter-individual variation in response to radiotherapy among 24 cancer patients
Following radiotherapy, patients have shown a wide variation of response of both tumour and normal tissues (Ruiz de Almodóvar et al., 2002). Similarly, the results of our study indicated that wide individual variability in response to radiotherapy occurred in 24 cancer patients. For example, the MCR and MNR at the dose of 50 Gy each increased 2-fold for patient 4, but 23- and 32-fold for patient 12 in the CBMN test. The MTL and MTM at the dose of 50 Gy increased 1.05- and 1.04-fold for patient 23, but 2.5- and 5-fold for patient 3 in the comet assay. However, the individual variability in the hprt gene mutation test was not as obvious as that in the CBMN test and comet assay. For example, Mfs-hprt at the dose of 50 Gy increased 1.13-fold for patient 17 and 1.89-fold for patient 23. Some of the variation may be accounted for by known factors, such as dose distribution and patient size, but it has been estimated that up to 70% of the observed inter-individual differences in radiosensitivity may be due to genetic predisposition (Barber et al., 2000).
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
This research work was supported by the International Cooperative Foundation of the Science-Technique Bureau of Zhejiang Province (grant no. 012104).
|
Notes |
|---|
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Zhejiang University, Medical College, Institute of Occupational and Environmental Health, Hangzhou 310006, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China. Tel: +86 571 87217188; Fax: +86 571 87217382; Email: he_jiliang{at}hotmail.com
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
-
Baciuchka-Palmaro,M., Orsiere,T., Duffaud,F. et al. (2002) Acentromeric micronuclei are increased in peripheral blood lymphocytes of untreated cancer patients. Mutat. Res., 520, 189–198.[Web of Science][Medline]
Barber,J.B., Burrill,W., Spreadborough,A.R., Levine,E., Warren,C., Kiltie,A.E., Roberts,S.A. and Scott,D. (2000) Relationship between in vitro chromosomal radiosensitivity of peripheral blood lymphocytes and the expression of normal tissue damage following radiotherapy for breast cancer. Radiother. Oncol., 55, 179–186.[Medline]
Borgmann,K., Roper,B., El-Awady,R., Brackrock,S., Bigalke,M., Dork,T., Alberti,W., Dikomey,E. and Dahm-Daphi,J. (2002) Indicators of late normal tissue response after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: fibroblasts, lymphocytes, genetics, DNA repair and chromosome aberrations. Radiother. Oncol., 64, 141–152.[CrossRef][Medline]
Byrne,J. (1999) Review. Long-term genetic and reproductive effects of ionizing radiation and chemotherapeutic agents on cancer patients and their offspring. Teratology, 59, 210–215.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Cao,J., Liu,Y., Sun,H., Cheng,G., Pang,X. and Zhou,Z. (2002) Chromosomal aberrations, DNA strand breaks and gene mutations in nasopharyngeal cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy. Mutat. Res., 504, 85–90.[Medline]
Colleu-Durel,S., Guitton,N., Nourgalieva,K., Legue,F., Leveque,J., Danic,B. and Chenal,C. (2004) Alkaline single-cell gel electrophoresis (comet assay): a simple technique to show genomic instability in sporadic breast cancer. Eur. J. Cancer, 40, 445–451.[Medline]
Fenech,M. (2000) The in vitro micronucleus technique. Mutat. Res., 455, 81–95.[Web of Science][Medline]
Fenech,M. (2002) Biomarkers of genetic damage for cancer epidemiology. Mutat. Res., 455, 81–95.
Fenech,M. and Morley,A.A. (1985) Measurement of micronuclei in lymphocytes. Mutat. Res., 147, 29–36.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Gil,O.M., Oliveira,N.G., Rodrigues,A.S., Laires,A., Ferreira,T.C., Limbert,E. and Rueff,J. (2000) No evidence of increased chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei in lymphocytes from nonfamilial thyroid cancer patients prior to radiotherapy. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet., 123, 55–60.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Gollin,S.M. (2004) chromosomal instability. Curr. Opin. Oncol., 16, 25–31.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Hendry,J.H. (2001) Review. Genomic instability: potential contributions to tumour and normal tissue response and second tumours, after radiotherapy. Radiother. Oncol., 59, 117–126.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Jagetia,G.C., Jayakrishnan,A., Fernandes,D. and Vidyasagar,M.S. (2001) Evaluation of micronuclei frequency in the cultured peripheral blood lymphocytes of cancer patients before and after radiation treatment. Mutat. Res., 491, 9–16.[Web of Science][Medline]
Kopjar,N., Garaj-Vrhovac,V. and Milas,I. (2002) Assessment of chemotherapy-induced DNA damage in peripheral blood leukocytes of cancer patients using the alkaline comet assay. Teratog. Carcinog. Mutagen., 22, 13–30.[Medline]
Kubota,M., Lin,Y.W., Hamahata,K., Sawada,M., Koishi,S., Hirota,H. and Wakazono,Y. (2000) Review. Cancer chemotherapy and somatic cell mutation. Mutat. Res., 470, 93–102.[Medline]
Li,L., Story,M. and Legerski,R.J. (2001) Cellular responses to ionizing radiation damage. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., 49, 1157–1162.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Palyvoda,O., Polanska,J., Wygoda,A. and Rzeszowska-Wolny,J. (2003) DNA damage and repair in lymphocytes of normal individuals and cancer patients: studies by the comet assay and micronucleus tests. Acta Biochim. Pol., 50, 181–190.[Web of Science][Medline]
Ruiz de Almodóvar,J.M., Guirado,D., Isabel Núñez,M., López,E., Guerrero,R., Teresa Valenzuela,M., Villalobos,M. and del Moral,R. (2002) Individualization of radiotherapy in breast cancer patients: possible usefulness of a DNA damage assay to measure normal cell radiosensitivity. Radiother. Oncol., 62, 327–333.[Medline]
Sawada,M., Kubota,M., Lin,Y.W., Watanabe,K., Koishi,S., Usami,I., Akiyama,Y., Matsumura,T. and Furusho,K. (1998) Evaluation of mutant frequencies at the hprt and the T-cell receptor loci in pediatric cancer patients before treatment. Mutat. Res., 397, 337–343.[Medline]
Singh,N.P., McCoy,M.T., Tice,R.R. and Schneider,E.L. (1988). A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Exp. Cell Res., 175, 184–191.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Twardella,D., Popanda,O., Helmbold,I. et al. (2003) Personal characteristics, therapy modalities and individual DNA repair capacity as predictive factors of acute skin toxicity in an unselected cohort of breast cancer patients receiving radiotherapy. Radiother. Oncol., 69, 145–153.[CrossRef][Medline]
Venkatachalam,P., Paul,S.F., Mohankumar,M.N., Prabhu,B.K., Gajendiran,N., Kathiresan,A. and Jeevanram,R.K. (1999) Higher frequency of dicentrics and micronuclei in peripheral blood lymphocytes of cancer patients. Mutat. Res., 425, 1–8.[Medline]
Zhang,M.B., He,J.L., Jin,L.F. and Lu,D.Q. (2002) Study of low-intensity 2450-MHz microwave exposure enhancing the genotoxic effects of mitomycin C using micronucleus test and comet assay in vitro. Biomed. Environ. Sci., 15, 283–290.[Medline]
Zwingmann,I.H., Welle,I.J., Engelen,J.J., Schilderman,P.A., de Jong,J.M. and Kleinjans,J.C. (1999) Analysis of oxidative DNA damage and HPRT mutant frequencies in cancer patients before and after radiotherapy. Mutat. Res., 431, 361–369.[Web of Science][Medline]
Received on July 12, 2004; revised on September 9, 2004; accepted on September 13, 2004.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Herrera, G. Dominguez, J. M. Garcia, C. Pena, C. Jimenez, J. Silva, V. Garcia, I. Gomez, R. Diaz, P. Martin, et al. Differences in Repair of DNA Cross-links between Lymphocytes and Epithelial Tumor Cells from Colon Cancer Patients Measured In vitro with the Comet Assay Clin. Cancer Res., September 1, 2009; 15(17): 5466 - 5472. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. J. McKenna, S. R. McKeown, and V. J. McKelvey-Martin Potential use of the comet assay in the clinical management of cancer Mutagenesis, May 1, 2008; 23(3): 183 - 190. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Hoffmann, J. Hogel, and G. Speit The effect of smoking on DNA effects in the comet assay: a meta-analysis Mutagenesis, November 1, 2005; 20(6): 455 - 466. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Deng, M. Zhang, J. He, W. Wu, L. Jin, W. Zheng, J. Lou, and B. Wang Investigating genetic damage in workers occupationally exposed to methotrexate using three genetic end-points Mutagenesis, September 1, 2005; 20(5): 351 - 357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||