Purpose: While cigarette smoke (CS) is known to modify the risk of radon-induced lung cancer, the mechanisms remain poorly understood. Experimental studies on their combined effects are limited by the lack of suitable in vitro exposure platforms. This study provides proof-of-concept validation of a novel ALI exposure system for controlled, simultaneous exposure to radon and CS.

Materials and methods: The system comprises a ²²⁶Ra source, radon monitor, smoking machine, particle counter, siphon mixing unit, and an ALI system. The CS unit maintained the target concentration at 5 mg/m³ and induced dose-response toxicity in BEAS-2B cells following 0.5, 1 and 2 h exposures. For a 2-h radon exposure, the estimated average dose to the cells was 1 mGy (range 0.3–7.5 mGy), with a localized dose of 171 mGy per hit nucleus.

Results: Separate exposure to radon (2 h, 228 ± 54 kBq/m³) and CS (1 h, 5 mg/m³) resulted in 75 ± 9% and 83 ± 16% cell viability, respectively, while combined exposure led to a significantly lower cell viability (55 ± 8%). A trend toward an increase in pro-inflammatory IL-8 secretion was noted for all exposures; however, it did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion: The developed ALI-based exposure system enables precise dosimetry and biological assessment, establishing a validated proof-of-concept platform for future research on environmental co-exposures.

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide, with tobacco smoke and radon exposure being the primary risk factors. The interaction between these two factors has been described as sub-multiplicative, but a better understanding is needed of how they jointly contribute to lung carcinogenesis. In this context, a comprehensive analysis of current knowledge regarding the effects of radon and tobacco smoke on lung cancer was conducted using a computational approach. Information on this co-exposure was extracted and clustered from databases, particularly the literature, using the text mining tool AOP-helpFinder and other artificial intelligence (AI) resources. The collected information was then organized into Aggregate Exposure Pathway (AEP) and Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOP) models. AEPs and AOPs represent analytical concepts useful for assessing the potential risks associated with exposure to various stressors. AOPs provide a structured framework to organize knowledge of essential Key Events (KEs) from a Molecular Initiating Event (MIE) to an Adverse Outcome (AO) at an organism or population level, while AEPs model exposures from the initial source of the stressor to the internal exposure site within the target organism, situated upstream of the AOP. Combining these frameworks offered an integrated method for knowledge consolidation of radon and tobacco smoke, detailing the association from the environment to a mechanistic level, and highlighting specific differences between the two stressors in DNA damage, mutational profiles, and histological types. This approach also identified gaps in understanding joint exposure, particularly the lack of mechanistic studies on the precise role of certain KEs such as inflammation, as well as the need for studies that more closely replicate real-world exposure conditions. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the potential of AI and machine learning tools in developing alternative toxicological models. It highlights the complex interaction between radon and tobacco smoke and encourages collaboration among scientific communities to conduct future studies aiming to fully understand the mechanisms associated with this co-exposure.

Astronauts travelling in space will be exposed to mixed beams of particle radiation and photons. Exposure limits that correspond to defined cancer risk are calculated by multiplying absorbed doses by a radiation-type specific quality factor that reflects the biological effectiveness of the particle without considering possible interaction with photons. We have shown previously that alpha radiation and X-rays may interact resulting in synergistic DNA damage responses in human peripheral blood lymphocytes but the level of intra-individual variability was high. In order to assess the variability and validate the synergism, blood from two male donors was drawn at 9 time points during 3 seasons of the year and exposed to 0–2 Gy of X-rays, alpha particles or 1:1 mixture of both (half the dose each). DNA damage response was quantified by chromosomal aberrations and by mRNA levels of 3 radiation-responsive genes FDXR, CDKN1A and MDM2 measured 24 h post exposure. The quality of response in terms of differential expression of alternative transcripts was assessed by using two primer pairs per gene. A consistently higher than expected effect of mixed beams was found in both donors for chromosomal aberrations and gene expression with some seasonal variability for the latter. No synergy was detected for alternative transcription.

Introduction and methods: Aiming to evaluate safety aspects of a recently proposed approach to target Alzheimer’s disease, we mimicked a complex boron neutron capture therapy field using a mixed beam consisting of high- and low-linear energy transfer (LET) radiation, 241Am alpha particles (α) and/or X-ray radiation respectively, in human microglial (HMC3) cells. Results: Acute exposure to 2 Gy X-rays induced the strongest response in the formation of γH2AX foci 30 min post irradiation, while α- and mixed beam-induced damage (α:X-ray = 3:1) sustained longer. Fractionation of the same total dose (0.4 Gy daily) induced a similar number of γH2AX foci as after acute radiation, however, α- or mixed irradiation caused a higher expression of DNA damage response genes CDKN1A and MDM2 24 h after the last fraction, as well as a stronger decrease in cell viability and clonogenic survival compared to acute exposure. Phosphorylation of STING, followed by phosphorylation of NF-κB subunit p65, was rapidly induced (1 or 3 h, respectively) after the last fraction by all radiation qualities. This led to IL-1β secretion into the medium, strongly elevated expression of pro-inflammatory cytokine genes and enhanced phagocytosis after fractionated exposure to α- and mixed beam-irradiation compared to their acute counterparts 24 h post-irradiation. Nevertheless, all inflammatory changes were returning to basal levels or below 10–14 days post irradiation. Discussion: In conclusion, we demonstrate strong transient pro-inflammatory induction by daily high-LET radiation in a microglia model, triggering phagocytosis which may aid in clearing amyloid beta, but importantly, from a safety perspective, without long-term alterations.

Purpose: Epidemiological studies show that radon and cigarette smoke interact in inducing lung cancer, but the contribution of nicotine in response to alpha radiation emitted by radon is not well understood. Materials and methods: Bronchial epithelial BEAS-2B cells were either pre-treated with 2 µM nicotine during 16 h, exposed to radiation, or the combination. DNA damage, cellular and chromosomal alterations, oxidative stress as well as inflammatory responses were assessed to investigate the role of nicotine in modulating responses. Results: Less γH2AX foci were detected at 1 h after alpha radiation exposure (1–2 Gy) in the combination group versus alpha radiation alone, whereas nicotine alone had no effect. Comet assay showed less DNA breaks already just after combined exposure, supported by reduced p-ATM, p-DNA-PK, p-p53 and RAD51 at 1 h, compared to alpha radiation alone. Yet the frequency of translocations was higher in the combination group at 27 h after irradiation. Although nicotine did not alter G2 arrest at 24 h, it assisted in cell cycle progression at 48 h post radiation. A slightly faster recovery was indicated in the combination group based on cell viability kinetics and viable cell counts, and significantly using colony formation assay. Pan-histone acetyl transferase inhibition using PU139 blocked the reduction in p-p53 and γH2AX activation, suggesting a role for nicotine-induced histone acetylation in enabling rapid DNA repair. Nicotine had a modest effect on reactive oxygen species induction, but tended to increase alpha particle-induced pro-inflammatory IL-6 and IL-1β (4 Gy). Interestingly, nicotine did not alter gamma radiation-induced γH2AX foci. Conclusions: This study provides evidence that nicotine modulates alpha-radiation response by causing a faster but more error-prone repair, as well as rapid recovery, which may allow expansion of cells with genomic instabilities. These results hold implications for estimating radiation risk among nicotine users.

Metaphase spreads stained with Giemsa or painted with chromosome-specific probes by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) have been in use since long for retrospective dose assessment (biological dosimetry). However, in cases of accidental exposure to ionising radiation, the culturing of lymphocytes to obtain metaphase chromosomes and analysis of chromosomal aberrations is time-consuming and problematic after high radiation doses. Similarly, analysing chromosomal damage in G0/G1 cells or nondividing cells by premature chromosome condensation is laborious. Following large-scale radiological emergencies, the time required for analysis is more important than precision of dose estimate. Painting of whole chromosomes using chromosome-specific probes in interphase nuclei by the FISH technique will eliminate the time required for cell culture and allow a fast dose estimate, provided that a meaningful dose-response can be obtained by scoring the number of chromosomal domains visible in interphase nuclei. In order to test the applicability of interphase FISH for quick biological dosimetry, whole blood from a healthy donor was irradiated with 8 Gy of gamma radiation. Irradiated whole blood was kept for 2 h at 37°C to allow DNA repair and thereafter processed for FISH with probes specific for Chromosomes-1 and 2. Damaged chromosomal fragments, distinguished by extra color domains, were observed in interphase nuclei of lymphocytes irradiated with 8 Gy. These fragments were efficiently detected and quantified by the FISH technique utilising both confocal and single plane fluorescence microscopy. Furthermore, a clear dose-response curve for interphase fragments was achieved following exposure to 0, 1, 2, 4 and 8 Gy of gamma radiation. These results demonstrate interphase FISH as a promising test for biodosimetry and for studying cytogenetic effects of radiation in nondividing cells.

Evidence on the impact of chemotherapy on radiotherapy-induced second malignant neoplasms is controversial. We estimated how cisplatin modulates the in vitro response of two normal cell types to fractionated radiation. AHH-1 lymphoblasts and VH10 fibroblasts were irradiated at 1 Gy/fraction 5 and 3 times per week during 12 and 19 days, respectively, and simultaneously treated with 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.7 and 3.3 µM of cisplatin twice a week. Cell growth during treatment was monitored. Cell growth/cell death and endpoints related to accumulation of DNA damage and, thus, carcinogenesis, were studied up to 21 days post treatment in cells exposed to radiation and the lowest cisplatin doses. Radiation alone significantly reduced cell growth. The impact of cisplatin alone below 3.3 µM was minimal. Except the lowest dose of cisplatin in VH10 cells, cisplatin reduced the inhibitory effect of radiation on cell growth. Delayed cell death was highest in the combination groups while the accumulation of DNA damage did not reveal a clear pattern. In conclusion, fractionated, concomitant exposure to radiation and cisplatin reduces the inhibitory effect of radiation on cell proliferation of normal cells and does not potentiate delayed effects resulting from accumulation of DNA damage.

Cells exposed to densely ionising high and scattered low linear energy transfer (LET) radiation (50 % dose of each) react more strongly than to the same dose of each separately. The relationship between DNA double strand break location inside the nucleus and chromatin structure was evaluated, using high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (TEM) in breast cancer MDA-MB-231 cells at 30 min post 5 Gy. Additionally, response to high and/or low LET radiation was assessed using single (1 ×1.5 Gy) versus fractionated dose delivery (5 ×0.3 Gy). By TEM analysis, the highest total number of γH2AX nanobeads were found in cells irradiated with alpha radiation just prior to gamma radiation (called mixed beam), followed by alpha, then gamma radiation. γH2AX foci induced by mixed beam radiation tended to be surrounded by open chromatin (lighter TEM regions), yet foci containing the highest number of beads, i.e. larger foci representing complex damage, remained in the heterochromatic areas. The γH2AX large focus area was also greater in mixed beam-treated cells when analysed by immunofluorescence. Fractionated mixed beams given daily induced the strongest reduction in cell viability and colony formation in MDA-MB-231 and osteosarcoma U2OS cells compared to the other radiation qualities, as well as versus acute exposure. This may partially be explained by recurring low LET oxidative DNA damage by every fraction together with a delay in recompaction of chromatin after high LET, demonstrated by low levels of heterochromatin marker H3K9me3 at 2 h after the last mixed beam fraction in MDA-MB-231. In conclusion, early differences in response to complex DNA damage may lead to a stronger cell kill induced by fractionated exposure, which suggest a therapeutic potential of combined high and low LET irradiation.

Early and high-throughput individual dose estimates are essential following large-scale radiation exposure events. In the context of the Running the European Network for Biodosimetry and Physical Dosimetry (RENEB) 2021 exercise, gene expression assays were conducted and their corresponding performance for dose-assessment is presented in this publication. Three blinded, coded whole blood samples from healthy donors were exposed to 0, 1.2 and 3.5 Gy X-ray doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min) using the X-ray source Yxlon. These exposures correspond to clinically relevant groups of unexposed, low dose (no severe acute health effects expected) and high dose exposed individuals (requiring early intensive medical health care). Samples were sent to eight teams for dose estimation and identification of clinically relevant groups. For quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) and microarray analyses, samples were lysed, stored at 20°C and shipped on wet ice. RNA isolations and assays were run in each laboratory according to locally established protocols. The time-to-result for both rough early and more precise later reports has been documented where possible. Accuracy of dose estimates was calculated as the difference between estimated and reference doses for all doses (summed absolute difference, SAD) and by determining the number of correctly reported dose estimates that were defined as ±0.5 Gy for reference doses <2.5 Gy and ±1.0 Gy for reference doses >3 Gy, as recommended for triage dosimetry. We also examined the allocation of dose estimates to clinically/diagnostically relevant exposure groups. Altogether, 105 dose estimates were reported by the eight teams, and the earliest report times on dose categories and estimates were 5 h and 9 h, respectively. The coefficient of variation for 85% of all 436 qRT-PCR measurements did not exceed 10%. One team reported dose estimates that systematically deviated several-fold from reported dose estimates, and these outliers were excluded from further analysis. Teams employing a combination of several genes generated about two-times lower median SADs (0.8 Gy) compared to dose estimates based on single genes only (1.7 Gy). When considering the uncertainty intervals for triage dosimetry, dose estimates of all teams together were correctly reported in 100% of the 0 Gy, 50% of the 1.2 Gy and 50% of the 3.5 Gy exposed samples. The order of dose estimates (from lowest to highest) corresponding to three dose categories (unexposed, low dose and highest exposure) were correctly reported by all teams and all chosen genes or gene combinations. Furthermore, if teams reported no exposure or an exposure >3.5 Gy, it was always correctly allocated to the unexposed and the highly exposed group, while low exposed (1.2 Gy) samples sometimes could not be discriminated from highly (3.5 Gy) exposed samples. All teams used FDXR and 78.1% of correct dose estimates used FDXR as one of the predictors. Still, the accuracy of reported dose estimates based on FDXR differed considerably among teams with one team's SAD (0.5 Gy) being comparable to the dose accuracy employing a combination of genes. Using the workflow of this reference team, we performed additional experiments after the exercise on residual RNA and cDNA sent by six teams to the reference team. All samples were processed similarly with the intention to improve the accuracy of dose estimates when employing the same workflow. Re-evaluated dose estimates improved for half of the samples and worsened for the others. In conclusion, this inter-laboratory comparison exercise enabled (1) identification of technical problems and corrections in preparations for future events, (2) confirmed the early and high-throughput capabilities of gene expression, (3) emphasized different biodosimetry approaches using either only FDXR or a gene combination, (4) indicated some improvements in dose estimation with FDXR when employing a similar methodology, which requires further research for the final conclusion and (5) underlined the applicability of gene expression for identification of unexposed and highly exposed samples, supporting medical management in radiological or nuclear scenarios.