Organization of cytogenetic dosimetry for veterans of special risk units

INTRODUCTION. Natural (background) ionizing radiation is experienced by all inhabitants of the Earth. Its impact is compensated by the body’s capabilities. Ionizing radiation from nuclear technologies is of man-made nature. Its compensation requires the involvement of medical organizations that provide assistance to persons exposed to such effects. The article contains data of medical literature, author’s comments and assessments on the topic of applying cytogenetic research techniques to analyze the results of exposure to ionizing radiation of nuclear technologies (IRNT).

OBJECTIVE. To determine the methods of cytogenetic dosimetry for assessment of nuclear ionizing radiation doses received by veterans of special risk units who served on nuclear submarines and test sites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The portal “Scientific Electronic Library” eLIBRARY.RU and the database of medical and biological publications PubMed were used as citations. The following queries were used to search Russianlanguage sources: peripheral blood lymphocytes; chromosome aberrations; biological dosimetry; dicentric; cytogenetic dosimetry. Data in the PubMed database were searched using the queries Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes, Chromosome Aberrations, Biological Dosimetry, Dicentrics, Cytogenetic Dosimetry. Publications from the period 1947-2020 were examined. 55 publications were analyzed.

RESULTS. The methods of cytogenetic dosimetry currently used are considered. The methods suitable for organization of cytogenetic examination of veterans of special risk units are determined. The limits of applicability of cytogenetic dosimetry methods and the principles of selecting persons from the contingent under consideration for organizing the examination are determined.

DISCUSSION. Some difficulties in performing cytogenetic dosimetry and interpreting its results are considered, taking into account non-obvious factors, such as the sensitivity threshold of the applied method and the use of radiation therapy when providing medical care to the subjects.

CONCLUSION. It is noted the role of cytogenetic dosimetry in replenishing the often missing information on the received physical dose of IRNT on the persons professionally involved in the situation. The main method of cytogenetic dosimetry was selected for use in providing medical and social assistance to veterans of special risk units.

1. Pershina E. I. Organization of medical care for veterans of special risk units of the Russian Federation. Bulletin of the Ivanovo Medical Academy, 2020, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 18–22 (In Russ.)].

2. Nugis V. Yu. FISH method: a method of cytogenetic retrospective dose assessment. Saratov Scientific and Medical Journal, 2016, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 671–678 (In Russ.)].

3. Cytogenetic analysis for radiation dose assessment: A manual. Vienna: IAEA, 2001, 126 p.

4. Cytogenetic dosimetry: applications in preparedness for and response to radiation emergencies. Vienna: IAEA, 2011, 229 p.

5. Dybskiy S. S. FISH method applied to the cytogenetic examination of persons recovered from acute radiation sickness due to the Chernobyl power plant accident. In: The problems of radiation genetics at the turn of the century: Abstracts. Moscow: Publishing House of Russian Peoples’ Friendship, 2000, p. 271.

6. Pilinskaya M. A. The frequency 0f chromosome aberrations in critical groups of Ukrainian population in delayed terms following the Chernobyl accident. In: The problems of radiation genetics at the turn of the century: Abstracts. Moscow: Publishing House of Russian Peoples’ Friendship, 2000, p. 312.

7. Sevan’kaev A. V., Golub E. V., Khvostunov I. K., et al. Retrospective assessment of doses in the long-term radiation period by various biological methods. Radiation biology. Radioecology, 2004, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp. 637–652 (In Russ.)].

8. Chen Y., Jin C.-Z., Zhang X.-Q., et al. Seventeen-year follow-up study on chromosomal aberrations in five victims accidentally exposed to several Gy of 60Co γ-rays. Radiat Environ Biophys, 2009, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 57–65.

9. Simon S. L., Bailiff I., Bouville A., et al. BiodosEPR-2006 consensus committee report on biodosimetric methods to evaluate radiation doses at long times after exposure. Radiat Measurements, 2007, Vol. 42, No. 6–7, pp. 948–971.

10. Sevan’kaev A. V., Khvostunov I. K., Mikhailova G. F., et al. The suitability of FISH chromosome painting and ESR-spectroscopy of tooth enamel assays for retrospective dose reconstruction. J Radiat Res, 2006, No. 47 (Suppl. A), А75–А80.

11. Natarajan A. T., Santos S. J., Darroudi F., et al. 137 Cesium-induced chromosome aberrations analysed by fluorescence in situ hybridization: Eight years follow up of the Goiȃnia radiation accident victims. Mutat Res, 1998, Vol. 400, No. 1, pp. 299–312.

12. Lucas J. N., Awa A., Straume T., et al. Rapid translocation frequency analysis in human decades after exposure to ionizing radiation. Int J Radiat Biol, 1992, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 53–63.

13. Ainsbury E. A., Bakhanova E., Barquinero J. F., et al. Review of retrospective dosimetry techniques for external ionising radiation. Radiat Prot Dosim, 2011, Vol. 147, No. 4, pp. 573–592.

14. Edwards A. A., Lindholm C., Darroudi F., et al. Review of translocations detected by FISH for retrospective biological dosimetry application. Radiat Prot Dosim, 2005, Vol. 113, No. 4, pp. 396–402.

15. Knehr S., Bauchinger M. Application of FISH painting for dose reconstruction: current status and views of the GSF cytogenetics group. Radiat Prot Dosim, 2000, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 15–20.

16. Rodriguez P., Montoro A., Barquinero J. F., et al. Analysis of translocations in stable cells and their implications in retrospective biological dosimetry. Radiat Prot Dosim, 2000, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 15–20.

17. Nugis V. Yu., Bushmanov A. Yu., Zapadinskaya E. E. Cytogenetic studies 28-29 years after the Chernobyl accident. Medical radiology and radiation safety, 2016, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 35–42 (In Russ.)].

18. Pyatkin E. K., Nugis V. Yu., Chirkov A. A. Assessment of the absorbed dose based on the results of cytogenetic studies of lymphocyte cultures in victims of the Chernobyl accident. Medical radiology, 1989, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 52–57 (In Russ.)].

19. Bochkov N. P., Katosova L. D., Sapacheva V. A. Cytogenetic analysis of peripheral blood lymphocytes from people living in radionuclide-contaminated areas of the Kaluga Region. Medical radiology, 1991, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 50–52 (In Russ.)].

20. Vorobtsova, I. E., Kolyubaeva S. N., Vorobyeva M. V. Cytogenetic characteristics of children affected by the Chernobyl accident. Medical radiology, 1993, Vol. 38, No. 10, pp. 25–28 (In Russ.)].

21. Vorobtsova I. E., Mikhelson V. M., Vorobyeva M. V. The results of the cytogenetic examination of the liquidators of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident, conducted in different years. Radiation biology. Radioecology, 1994, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 798–803 (In Russ.)].

22. Domracheva E. V., Klevezal G. A., Nechai V. V. Individual radiation doses determined by two methods of biological dosimetry for residents of the Chernobyl region and participants in the liquidation of the accident. Hematology and Transfusiology, 1991, Vol. 36, No. 12, pp. 18–20 (In Russ.)].

23. Zainullin V. G., Borodkin P. A., Chernyak S. I. Results of cytogenetic examination of persons who participated in the liquidation of the Chernobyl accident. Radiobiology, 1992, Vol. 32, No. 5. pp. 668–672 (In Russ.)].

24. Pilinskaya M. A., Shemetun A.M., Dybskiy S. S. Cytogenetic effect in peripheral blood lymphocytes as an indicator of human exposure to Chernobyl accident factors. Radiobiology, 1992, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 632–639 (In Russ.)].

25. Khandogina E. K., Ageikin V. A., Zvereva S. V. Cytogenetic examination of various groups of children living in areas of the Bryansk region contaminated as a result of the Chernobyl accident, Radiation Biology. Radioecology, 1995, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 618–625 (In Russ.)].

26. Khvostunov I. K., Sevankaev A. V., Mikhailova G. F. The role of cytogenetic examination in assessing the effects of uncontrolled radiation exposure on humans // In collection: “Medical radiological consequences of Chernobyl: prognosis and evidence after 30 years.” Edited by V. K. Ivanov, A. D. Kaprin. Moscow: GeOS, 2015, pp. 93–119 (In Russ.)].

27. Vorobtsova I. E., Bogomazova A. N. Stable chromosomal aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes of persons affected by the Chernobyl accident. Radiation Biology. Radioecology, 1995, Vol. 35, No. 5. pp. 636-640 (In Russ.)].

28. Sevankaev A. V., Mikhailova G. F., Potetnya O. I. The results of dynamic cytogenetic monitoring of children and adolescents living in radioactively contaminated areas after the Chernobyl accident. Radiation Biology. Radioecology, 2005, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 5–15 (In Russ.)].

29. Snigireva G. P., Shevchenko V. A., Novitskaya N. N. The use of the FISH method for the reconstruction of absorbed doses received by participants in the liquidation of the Chernobyl accident. Radiation Biology. Radioecology, 1995, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 654–661 (In Russ.)].

30. Shevchenko V. A., Snigireva G. P. The significance of cytogenetic examination for assessing the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Radiation Biology. Radioecology, 2006, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 133–139 (In Russ.)].

31. Cytogenetic Dosimetry: Applications in Preparedness for and Response to Radiation Emergencies. Vienna: IAEA, 2011, 245 p.

32. Nugis V. Yu., Bushmanov A. Yu., Kozlova M. G. Cytogenetic radiation dose indication approximately 30 years after the Chernobyl accident, Medical radiology and radiation safety, 2017, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 26–32 (In Russ.)].

33. Edwards A. A., Lindholm C., Darroudi F., et al. Review of translocations detected by FISH for retrospective biological dosimetry application. Radiat. Protect. Dosim, 2005, Vol. 113, No. 4, pp. 396–402.

34. Salassidis K., Georgiadou-Schumacher V., Braselmann H., et al. Chromosome painting in highly irradiated Chernobyl victims: a follow-up study to evaluate the stability of symmetrical translocations and the influence of clonal aberrations for retrospective dose estimation. Int. J. Radiat. Biol, 1995, Vol. 68, No. 3, pp. 257–262.

35. Savage J. K. Classification and relationships of induced chromosomal structural changes. J. Medical Genetic, 1976, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 103–122.

36. Lucas J. N., Awa A., Straume T., et al. Rapid translocation frequency analysis in human decades after exposure to ionizing radiation. Int. J. Radiat. Biol, 1992, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 53–63.

37. Mendelsohn M. L., Mayall B. H., Bogart E., et al. DNA content and DNA-based centromeric index of 24 human chromosomes. Science, 1973, Vol. 179, No. 78, pp. 1126–1129.

38. Sigurdson A. J., Ha M., Hauptmann M., et al. International study of factors affecting human chromosome translocations. Mutat. Res, 2008, Vol. 652, No. 2, pp. 112–121.

39. Whitehouse C. A., Edwards A. A., Tawn E. J., et al. Translocation yields in peripheral blood lymphocytes from control populations. Int. J. Radiat. Biol, 2005, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp. 139–145.

40. Neronova E. G., Sablina A. O., Aleksanin S. S. Possibilities of reconstructing doses of external radiation from the liquidators of the consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident by cytogenetic methods. Medical-biological and socio-psychological problems of safety in emergency situations, 2019, No. 4. pp. 70–78 (In Russ.)] doi: 10.25016/25417487-2019-0-4-70-78.

41. Aleksanin S. S., Shantyr I. I., Astafyev O. M., et al. Reconstruction of radiation doses of participants in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident with an assessment of dose-dependent effects (based on the materials of the departmental and national register): monograph / A. M. Nikiforov All-Russian Center for Emergency and Radiation Medicine of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia. St. Petersburg, 2017, 208 p. (In Russ.)].

42. Snigireva G. P., Bogomazova A. N., Novitskaya N. N. Biological indication of radiation exposure to the human body using cytogenetic methods (medical technology No.FS2007/015U). Moscow, 2007. 29 p. (In Russ.)].