Md. Ziaur Rahman, Safaiatul Islam, Abu Hena Mostofa Kamal, A. Y. K. Md. Masud Rana, Protul Kumar Roy
Molecular Radiobiology and Biodosimetry Division, Institute of Food and Radiation Biology, Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
DOI: 10.4236/jbm.2025.137001   PDF    HTML   XML   114 Downloads   725 Views   Citations

Abstract

Biodosimetry, a technique for estimating radiation doses by assessing chromosomal aberrations in both accidental and occupational exposures, has played a crucial role in radiological protection, clinical contexts, and monitoring exposed populations. Recent advancements in biodosimetry aim to enhance accuracy, sensitivity, and clinical applicability. These innovations contain novel biomarkers (e.g., metabolomic, exosomal, and proteomic markers) for detecting radiation-induced DNA damage. Additionally, progress in high-throughput technologies and automated scoring systems facilitates quicker and more efficient chromosomal aberration analysis, rendering biodosimetry suitable for extensive studies. This review provides an overview of recent biodosimetry developments and their application in radiation emergencies and clinical practices, especially in nuclear medicine.

Keywords

Radiation, Chromosomal Aberrations, Biomarkers, Biodosimetry, Nuclear Medicine

Share and Cite:

1. Introduction

Ionizing radiation, from natural and human-made sources, averages around 6.2 mSv (0.0062 Sv) annually for adults. Instances of increased radiation exposure occur due to equipment malfunctions, nuclear accidents, misplaced radioactive materials, improvised nuclear devices, and nuclear terrorism. Severe cases, like the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant incident, exemplify the consequences [1]. Additionally, the widespread use of radiological instruments in medical field poses a growing public health threat, with mortality risks from acute radiation syndrome varying from 3.5 Gy to 7.5 Gy, depending on treatment availability. The international Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) issue guidelines regularly for radiation exposure prevention and practices aiming to mitigate health impacts. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are standard for occupational exposures, but non-compliance and detection limits can lead to inaccuracies, especially in unplanned incidents. Physicians involved in radiology and in fluoroscopic procedures (FG) may also underestimate their exposure due to insufficient training and negligence. Some operators also ignore protective measures, including dosimeters and lead shielding. Hence, accurately assessing absorbed radiation doses is vital for initiating appropriate medical responses in case of overexposure. Biodosimetry becomes essential in such situations, helping assess absorbed doses when physical reconstruction is uncertain [2]. Bender and Gooch [3] pioneered the use of dicentric chromosomes (DCs) detection in peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBLs) to estimate absorbed radiation doses in humans, leading to the routine use of the Dicentric Chromosome Assay (DCA) for assessing radiation doses in occupational and accidental exposures.

Biological dosimetry measures DNA damage at a cellular level, detecting chromosomal aberrations like DCs, centric rings (CRs), and micronuclei (MN). The frequency of these aberrations serves as a biological indicator of absorbed radiation dose, predicting short, medium, and long-term health consequences [4] [5]. Unlike physical measurements with TLDs, biodosimetry reflects actual biological harm and accounts for individual radiosensitivity, making them relevant for deterministic syndromes and stochastic cancer risks [6]. Currently, post-dose estimation of biological sample is the most reliable method for assessing absorbed dose [7] [8]. Biodosimetry markers have long been effective in radiation protection, measuring exposure in incidents, accidents, workplaces, and high-radioactivity environments. They are valuable in medical fields like nuclear medicine, radiology, radiation oncology, and radiation pathology, complementing other radiation health risk and toxicity predictors [9] [10].

In recent decades, several validated biodosimetry methods have emerged, mainly based on radiation-induced DNA damage and misrepair, detected through cytogenetic assays like DCA, cytokinesis-block micronucleus (CBMN) assay, premature chromosome condensation (PCC) assay, γ-H2AX assay, “Omics” technologies, and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay for translocation analysis. DCA is widely used and considered as “gold standard” due to its radiation specificity and low background frequency. The PBLs derived from pluripotent stem cells in bone marrow, stimulated by phytohemagglutinin (PHA) in vitro, can be arrested in metaphase using colchicine for biodosimetry. Since PBLs circulate throughout the body, they serve as circulating dosimeters, averaging the dose from all body parts. Biodosimetry is valuable when TLDs are unavailable or inconclusive due to radiosensitivity variations. For clinical applications, biodosimetry helps measure absorbed radiation dose by diverse organs or systems. Gamma-H2AX and FISH are sensitive and high-throughput tools, though standardization for clinical applications remains incomplete. Therefore, advancements in high-throughput cytogenetic biodosimetry are crucial for radiological accidents and for effective radiation diagnosis and therapy. This article reviews the development of key biodosimetry methods, discussing their potential applications and limitations in radiation emergencies, nuclear medicine, diagnostic, and interventional radiology.

2. Biodosimetry Techniques

Biodosimetry relies on cytogenetic assays in PBLs to estimate radiation exposure. These assays measure chromosomal aberrations, including DCs, MN, PCC, and translocations (FISH), to quantify radiation dose. DCA, CBMN assay, and FISH assay are standardized methods for this purpose, while PCC analysis is under consideration for standardization [11]. Comparison of these four major biodosimetry techniques is outlined in Table 1.

Table 1. Comparison of four major cytogenetic biodosimetry techniques.

	Dicentric (and ring) chromosome aberration (DCA) assay	Cytokinesis block micronucleus (CBMN) assay	Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) (Translocation) assay	Premature chromosome condensation (PCC) assay
Typical aberrations scored for biodosimetry applications	Dicentrics (and rings)	Micronuclei	Dicentrics* (and rings) Translocations*	Excess chromosome Fragments Dicentrics* (and rings) Translocations*
Typical radiation scenario applications	Low-level acute Protracted prior exposure	acute	Protracted Prior exposure	Acute (including high doses)
Photon equivalent, acute dose range (Gy) for whole-body dose assessment	0.1 to 5	0.3 to 5	0.25 to 4	0.2 to 20
Useful for partial-body exposure applications	yes	NA	NA	yes
Useful for triage dose assessment	yes	yes	NA	yes
Standardization of assay	ISO standard reference assay (1000 metaphase spreads or 40 dicentrics) ISO standard for triage assay (20 - 50 metaphase spreads)-pending	ISO standard for reference assay pending	NA	NA
Advantages	Gold standard; Low baseline frequency	Less time required; easy to score	Retrospective assay	Suitable for high exposure
Disadvantages	Time consuming	Non-specific to radiation	More expensive; expertise dependent	Technical expertise required

Table modified from TMT Handbook (ref: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/tmt-handbook, 2009). *Specific chromosome aberrations are typically detected by the use of centromeric and whole-chromosome-specific DNA hybridization probes. NA = not applicable.

2.1. Dicentric Chromosome Assay (DCA)

The DCA is a widely used and highly effective method for assessing radiation exposure by DCs in human PBLs. DCs, characterized by having two centromeres, result from the fusion of different chromosome segments, each with its centromeric locus (Figure 1). The frequency of DCs directly correlates with the radiation dosage [12]. Normally, regardless of age, the baseline occurrence of DCs is about 1 in 1000 cells. DCA’s sensitivity, capped at 0.1 Gy, has established it as the gold standard in biological dosimetry for emergency medicine, endorsed by organizations like the IAEA. It has been successfully used in various historical nuclear incidents, including Chernobyl in 1986 [13], the Goiania accident in 1987 [14], Japan’s JCO Tokaimura incident in 1999 [15], and the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant disaster in 2012 [1], among others.

However, the DCA has some methodological limitations. It involves lengthy cell culture processes (often spanning 48 hours), complex preparation steps including collection, fixation, staining, and the labor-intensive task of microscopically analyzing a large number of metaphase cells. This becomes even more challenging in the case of a large-scale nuclear incident with numerous samples to process. Additionally, the inherent instability of DCs and their tendency to induce cell death during mitotic division limit the assay to post-exposure evaluations spanning several months to years. The DCA’s reliability is compromised when doses exceed 50 Gy due to increased chromosomal aberration frequencies within cells. Over the past two decades, efforts have been made to enhance the efficiency of the DCA, particularly in the context of nuclear or radiological incidents [16]-[18]. Studies suggest that assessing as few as 50 metaphases in triage mode or up to 1000 metaphases or 100 DCs in full-scoring mode can expedite the sorting of exposed individuals. An innovative scoring technique called “DCA QuickScan” has been introduced but is awaiting adoption by the IAEA [19].

Recent research indicates that the DCA takes approximately 52 hours to produce results for medical triage [20], making it challenging to use in scenarios involving large-scale radiation incidents and significant numbers of populations. Collaborative efforts among multiple laboratories have become crucial in such situations, leading to inter-laboratory comparison initiatives that facilitate the exchange of knowledge, protocols, workloads, scoring methodologies, and microscopic analyses [21]. Technological advancements, including automated systems like Metasystems and IMSTAR with software-driven image acquisition for dose estimation, have further improved the practical application of DCA in assessing biodosimetry for extensive population cohorts.

While DCA is the gold standard for external acute exposures, its application to internal emitters like I-131 presents unique challenges. Developing precise in vivo calibration curves for internal emitters is complex due to non-uniform dose distribution and continuous low-dose-rate exposure. Most studies for I-131 biodosimetry rely on in vitro dose-response curves established using external gamma or X-ray sources. This introduces a discrepancy as the biological effects of internal beta and gamma emissions from I-131 might differ from external acute exposures. The dose rate and protracted nature of internal exposure can influence the yield of dicentrics, potentially leading to an underestimation compared to acute exposures of the same total dose. The metabolism and biological half-life of I-131 vary significantly among individuals, influencing the actual absorbed dose to circulating lymphocytes. Factors such as patient age, thyroid function, presence of metastatic disease, and other co-morbidities can act as confounders, impacting the dicentric yield and complicating dose estimation. Additionally, the heterogeneity of I-131 distribution within the body means that lymphocytes may not receive a uniform dose, making a whole-body dose assessment based solely on peripheral blood challenging. Despite its frequent use in I-131 exposure scenarios, the DCA lacks specific ISO standardization for internal emitters. Guidelines for sampling time, particularly for protracted low-dose-rate exposures from internal contamination, need further refinement to accurately capture the peak biological effect while accounting for the instability of dicentrics. Robust inter-laboratory validation studies using biologically relevant internal emitter models are crucial for establishing reliable protocols.

Figure 1. A schematic outline (A-B) of the formation of aberrant chromosome and their assay methods. (A) Formation of stable (Translocation and unstable (Dicentric) aberrant chromosome. (B) Assay of dicentric and translocation of chromosome.

2.2. Cytokinesis Block Micronucleus (CBMN) Assay

The CBMN assay quantifies MN in human PBLs, which form after DNA damage caused by ionizing radiation during cell division (Figure 2). These MN are distinct spherical structures in the cytoplasm of daughter cells mirroring the nucleus in morphology and staining properties. Fenech and Morel [22] introduced the reliable CBMN assay for the first time using a cytokinesis inhibitor, Cytochalasin-B, to identify binucleated cells streamlining MN scoring and excluding non-dividing cells. Consequently, it emerged as the standard method for evaluating MN in cultured lymphocytes. Subsequent advancements allowed MN scoring in mononucleated cells and introduced the CBMN-centromere assay using FISH and centromeric probes to enhance sensitivity, particularly in lower radiation doses [23]-[26]. Fenech [27] introduced the CBMN-Cytome assay (CBMN-Cyt), an advanced version of the CBMN assay. It assesses not only micronuclei (MN) in binucleated and mononucleated cells but also quantifies nucleoplasmic bridges and nuclear buds in binucleated cells. Additionally, the CBMN-Cyt assay evaluates various cellular parameters, including the proportions of mono-nucleated, binucleated, and multinucleated cells, as well as identifying necrotic and apoptotic cells. This comprehensive analysis provides insights into cellular proliferation and cell death rate, which are significant in biological dosimetry. This refined assay not only assesses genomic damage through MN but also offers a broader perspective on cellular dynamics, enriching our understanding of the biological effects of genotoxic agents. The baseline occurrence of MN varies significantly, ranging from 0 to 40 per 1000 binucleated cells [28]-[31], with age and gender being important determinants [32]. Besides radiation-induced effects, other genotoxic stressors also lead to DNA fragmentation, resulting in MN within the cell cytoplasm [33] [34].

Despite its limitations, the CBMN assay shows a significant trend: an increase in micronuclei (MN) frequency with higher radiation dose and quality, validating its reliability for measuring radiation exposure. The assay’s utility shines through its adoption as a pivotal triage biodosimetry tool in diverse scenarios including post-Chernobyl [35], Istanbul radiation incidents [36], and brachytherapy cases [37]. One notable advantage is its rapid turnaround time, requiring just 200 binucleated cells to achieve a sensitivity of 1.0 Gy [38]. This makes it particularly valuable in resource-limited settings where access to specialized equipment might be restricted. Other challenges of this method include complex quantification of different cell types and extended cell culture times (68 - 72 hours). To address these issues, imaging flow cytometry has been proposed for automated MN identification across cell types [39]. Additionally, Repin et al. [40] introduced the RABiT-II automated MN assay system to reduce result turnaround time, especially in large-scale radiological incidents. Ongoing advancements include a recent triage application using manual MN scoring in shorter 48-hour cultures, enhancing the CBMN assay’s practicality for swift ionizing radiation exposure assessment [41].

While CBMN assay is quicker than DCA, its validation for internal emitters like I-131 is still evolving. Studies often use in vitro curves derived from external sources, which may not fully represent the chronic, low-dose-rate exposure characteristic of I-131 therapy. The continuous exposure could lead to repair mechanisms being activated differently, affecting MN formation. The CBMN assay is less specific to radiation-induced damage compared to DCA, as MN can be induced by various genotoxic agents, chemical exposures, and even lifestyle factors [33] [34]. This lack of specificity is a significant confounder when assessing I-131 exposure, making it challenging to attribute observed MN increases solely to the radioisotope. Individual variations in metabolic rates, immune responses, and baseline MN frequencies further complicate accurate dose estimation. Although ISO standardization for reference assay is pending, specific guidelines for applying CBMN to internal emitters, particularly regarding optimal sampling times to capture the peak MN frequency after protracted exposure, are needed.

Figure 2. (A)-(C) A schematic outline of binucleated (BN) and micronucleus (MN) formation. (A) Formation of BN cells in vitro using Cytochalasin-B. (B) MN originating from acentric fragments. (C) MN with nucleoplasmic bridges (NPB) originating from dicentric chromosomes (DICs).

2.3. Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization (FISH) Assay

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a crucial tool for assessing radiation-induced chromosomal aberrations, particularly when dealing with the long-term effects of radiation exposure. While traditional methods like counting DCs and MN have limitations due to their instability over time, FISH allows for the reliable detection of stable chromosomal aberrations, such as translocations (Figure 1), which persist over decades [42]-[44].

Previously, translocation analysis using G-banding techniques required expert evaluation of karyotypes, but FISH revolutionized this process by using distinct chromosome-specific colors to “paint” each chromosome pair. This technique has been in use since 1996 and has evolved with various methodologies and probes that can depict chromosomes in different colors, making inter-chromosomal translocation detection possible [45]. For instance, multiplex-FISH (mFISH) and spectral karyotyping allow the simultaneous use of all 24-human whole-chromosome painting probes. The main challenge with FISH is subtle shade variations between colors, which may make differentiation difficult to the human eye. To address this, the current practice involves focusing on three pairs of chromosomes, with each pair having a distinct color or sharing a color with another pair [46]. This simplifies translocation detection while maintaining accuracy. FISH offers precise and sensitive dose calculations, maintaining reliability even after extended periods, such as 20 years post-exposure [47]. In studies involving mice, translocations were found to be three times more prominent than dicentrics when exposed to doses between 1 to 20 mGy/day [48].

FISH has been applied in various scenarios, including estimating radiation doses for atomic bomb survivors [49] [50], radiation technologists with long-term occupational exposure [51], and accidents like Goianna [14], and the Georgian accident [52]. To simplify the process and reduce costs, it is now common to focus on three larger chromosomes (Chromosome No. 1 to 12), which constitute approximately 20% of the genome with a 33% translocation detection efficiency [11]. Different combinations of FISH probes for these chromosomes have been developed, and their combined genomic translocation frequencies can be calculated.

For retrospective biological dosimetry, a single-color FISH for a triple paint of target chromosomes is often sufficient [53]. In comparison to traditional G-banding, the FISH assay-based translocation measurement proves swift and uncomplicated, surpassing conventional DCs and MN analysis for retrospective biological dosimetry. While FISH may have lower sensitivity compared to other methods with a detection limit of around 0.30 Gy, it is highly regarded for its precision in detecting radiation-induced translocations [47]. It has proven effective in capturing subtle genetic alterations that other biodosimetry methods may miss. Additionally, FISH can be used in conjunction with other techniques like CBMN assays to provide a comprehensive assessment of chromosomal damage and cellular responses to genotoxic stress.

FISH is particularly valuable for retrospective biodosimetry of internal emitters due to the stability of translocations. While FISH effectively detects translocations from I-131 exposure, the establishment of specific in vivo calibration curves for internal emitters remains a challenge. The prolonged, low-dose-rate nature of I-131 exposure can lead to different dose-response relationships for stable aberrations compared to acute, high-dose external exposures. In vitro curves derived from external sources may not fully account for the repair kinetics and cellular environment under chronic internal irradiation. Although translocations are highly specific to radiation, other confounding factors could potentially influence their frequency, such as genetic predisposition, age, and previous exposures to genotoxic agents. While less susceptible to short-term fluctuations than unstable aberrations, long-term cellular turnover and individual radiosensitivity can still affect the measured translocation yield. There is currently no specific ISO standard for FISH application in internal dosimetry. Developing standardized protocols for sampling, cell culture, and scoring for long-term follow-up of internal exposure is essential.

2.4. Premature Chromosome Condensation (PCC) Assay

Biodosimetry typically involves assessing chromosomal abnormalities like DCs and translocations in cells during initial mitosis. This process uses mitogen phytohemagglutinin (PHA) to stimulate cell division, followed by cell cycle arrest using colcemid. However, these methods have limitations, including delays and cell death, leading to underestimated radiation exposure. In radiation emergencies, waiting 48 - 72 hours for results is often impractical. The Premature Chromosome Condensation (PCC) assay offers a solution. It induces early chromosome condensation, reducing the culture time and mitigating potential delays or cell death. It can be applied to inactive lymphocytes, providing rapid exposure insights just hours after collection. This technique also avoids issues related to post-irradiation stimulation and cell cycle progression.

The PCC method was initially developed by Johnson and Rao [54], fusing interphase cells with mitotic cells from other cell lines using agents like Sendai virus or polyethylene glycol. Despite its advantages, PCC adoption for biodosimetry has been limited. In 1995, Gotoh et al. introduced a simpler PCC induction method using Calyculin A, which is highly efficient across various cell types [55]. This method allows visualization of interphase chromatin and enables rapid chromosome analysis within 2-hour timeframe, which reduces the risk of losing information due to interphase cell death.

The Calyculin A-induced PCC assay has gained widespread acceptance, demonstrating effectiveness in constructing dose-effect curves for high levels of exposure [56]-[58]. It has a remarkable minimum dose detection threshold of 0.05 Gy and has been applied in various scenarios, including the Tokaimura incident [59] and non-human primate studies [60]. The RENEB network has also utilized G0-lymphocyte PCC for dose assessments [61]. Efforts are ongoing to automate the PCC assay and explore novel approaches, such as using the longest-to-shortest chromosome length ratio [62], and mitotic Akodon cells [63] to enhance dose estimation accuracy. Combining PCC with other techniques, like mFISH and mBAND, has shown promise in detecting chromosome aberrations, making the G0-PCC technique a valuable biodosimetry tool for assessing radiation dose and identifying chromosome abnormalities in unstimulated lymphocytes [64].

PCC’s rapid turnaround time makes it appealing for internal emitter exposure, especially in high-dose scenarios. While PCC can rapidly assess chromosomal damage, establishing specific in vivo dose-response curves for internal emitters like I-131 is still an area of active research. The dose rate and continuous nature of I-131 exposure might influence the kinetics of PCC induction and aberration formation differently than acute external exposures. Most existing calibration curves are based on acute external irradiation, and their direct applicability to protracted internal exposures needs further validation. PCC, particularly in its basic form, can detect chromosome fragments which are highly sensitive to radiation. However, the presence of non-radiation induced DNA damage or pre-existing chromosomal instability from other factors could act as confounders. The interpretation of PCC results for internal emitters requires careful consideration of the background levels of aberrations and potential non-radiation-induced sources of damage. PCC is currently not ISO standardized. For its widespread adoption in internal dosimetry, clear guidelines on sample handling, induction protocols, scoring criteria, and interpretation of results, especially for protracted internal exposures, are essential.

2.5. Other Prospective Methods for Biodosimetry

Apart from conventional biodosimetry techniques, emerging methods are under development to assess radiation-induced DNA damage. One notable approach is the measurement of phosphorylated histone H2AX (γ-H2AX foci) levels, which promptly increase following DNA double-strand breaks caused by ionizing radiation, peaking around 30 minutes post-exposure and gradually decreasing [65]. Studies have shown a positive correlation between γ-H2AX foci and radiation doses from conventional CT scans [66] [67]. However, γ-H2AX is more relevant for short-term estimation of radiation exposure, as it is detectable shortly after exposure and valuable for immediate assessment after accidental incidents [68] [69]. The GPA mutation assay, another promising biodosimetry method, estimates accidental exposure by examining allele loss in the GPA, a surface glycoprotein on red blood cells. This method is applicable to about half of the population (only on MN heterozygotes), making it less versatile. Ha et al. applied the GPA assay on 32 hospital workers, revealing correlation between NO and NN variants and exposure doses [70]. Additionally, research has explored [71] correlations between ionizing radiation and DNA methylation and oxidative damage in occupational exposure consisting of 117 interventional physicians and 117 controls. While these approaches have shown promise, their complexity and time requirements limit their regular use. The Comet assay is a well-known technique used to measure DNA damage from low-dose ionizing radiation in PBLs [72] [73]. It detects DNA damage at the single-cell level, primarily through comet-like structures formed during electrophoresis. While widely used, it has lower sensitivity, although enhancing sensitivity could be valuable for detecting low-dose exposures.

These emerging methods hold promise for I-131 biodosimetry, but require further validation.

While rapid, the transient nature of γ-H2AX foci limits its use for protracted internal exposures like I-131, especially for retrospective assessment. The continuous low-dose-rate exposure from I-131 may lead to a sustained but lower level of foci, making it difficult to establish acute dose equivalents. The kinetics of foci formation and repair in response to internal beta emitters require more specific investigation and calibration curves. The main limitation of GPA mutation assay for I-131 application is its applicability to only a subset of the population (MN heterozygotes), significantly limiting its widespread utility for internal dosimetry. While promising for understanding biological effects, the correlation between DNA methylation, oxidative damage, and specific I-131 doses is not yet robustly established.

A key gap for all these techniques, when applied to internal emitters, is the development of robust in vivo dose-response relationships and the understanding of how continuous, low-dose-rate exposure from radioisotopes like I-131 affects these biomarkers compared to acute external exposures. Confounders specific to patient metabolism and disease state also need thorough investigation. Significant standardization efforts are required before these methods can be routinely adopted for I-131 biodosimetry.

3. Application of Biodosimetry in Nuclear Medicine, Especially in Radioiodine Therapy

Biodosimetry plays a crucial role in nuclear medicine by measuring radiation doses received by individuals exposed to ionizing radiation through the assessment of chromosomal damage in their blood cells. Nuclear medicine utilizes radiopharmaceuticals containing radioactive isotopes emitting ionizing radiation for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. This radiation can harm cells, and the level of damage depends on the absorbed radiation, which can be estimated by analyzing chromosomal aberrations. In diagnostic nuclear medicine, low radiation doses are used, whereas therapeutic doses are higher and require careful monitoring to minimize harm to healthy tissues. Biodosimetry is instrumental in monitoring radiation doses, reducing damage, and adjusting treatment plans.

In the context of internal exposure from radiopharmaceuticals, particularly I-131, various biodosimetry techniques have been employed to assess genotoxic effects.

3.1. Dicentric Chromosome Assay (DCA) in I-131 Exposure

Early studies utilized DCA to estimate biological dosage in patients undergoing therapeutic radioiodine (I-131) administration. Lloyd et al. developed an algorithm for this purpose [74]. Subsequent research consistently reported increased frequencies of dicentric chromosomes following I-131 treatment for thyroid tumors, non-cancerous thyroid conditions, and other ailments [30] [75]-[94]. For instance, Harnandez-Jerdines et al. observed a higher post-treatment frequency of radiation-induced aberrations in patients with metastatic conditions compared to those without metastases, attributed to greater exposure of circulating PBLs to cancerous tissue retaining I-131 [86]. While specific fold-changes in dicentrics varied across studies due to differences in administered activity and patient characteristics, the general trend was a dose-dependent increase. Some studies also generated in vitro dose-response calibration curves using external sources (60Co, 137Cs, or X-rays) to benchmark in vivo biomarker measurements [75]-[77] [79] [81] [82] [85] [88].

3.2. Micronuclei (MN) in I-131 Exposure

The CBMN assay has been widely applied to assess genotoxic effects in patients undergoing I-131 therapy. Studies consistently reported significant increases in MN yields after I-131 treatment for thyroid cancer, thyrotoxicosis, neuroendocrine tumors, and hepatocellular carcinoma [30] [75] [76] [78] [80] [84] [90] [92] [93] [95] [96]. For example, patients with hyperthyroidism displayed persistent micronuclei even after total thyroidectomy, indicating sustained genomic instability [80]. The increase in MN frequency generally correlated with the administered I-131 dose, with fold-changes often ranging from 1.5 to 3 times the baseline levels, depending on the individual patient and dose. While some studies reported exceptions where MN levels did not increase or even decreased [84] [90], the overwhelming evidence supports MN as a sensitive indicator of I-131 induced DNA damage. The “human transferring receptor positive reticulocytes (Tf-Ret)” method, using MN in reticulocytes, also showed effectiveness in monitoring I-131 treated patients [30].

3.3. Translocations (FISH) in I-131 Exposure

FISH analysis for stable chromosomal aberrations, particularly translocations, has proven valuable for assessing long-term effects of I-131 exposure. Elevated stable translocation levels were documented through FISH analysis after approximately 3.5 years of I-131 treatment in thyroid cancer and thyrotoxicosis patients [81], highlighting the clinical utility of cytogenetic biodosimetry for retrospective assessments. Longitudinal studies conducted over 20 to 25 years confirmed sustained chromosomal aberrations (translocations) [92] [93], emphasizing their value for retrospective radiation exposure assessment and ongoing monitoring of chromosomal instability. While specific fold-changes for translocations are less frequently reported compared to dicentrics or MN, the persistence of these stable aberrations over long periods indicates their importance for long-term health surveillance.

3.4. Other Biomarkers in I-131 Exposure

Khvostunov et al. recently assessed chromosomal damage induced by I-131 therapy in differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) cases, including a pediatric patient, showing increased aberrant cells after each therapy session and mostly unchanged patterns during follow-up [94]. This aligns with findings from mFISH analysis using buccal cells, which also showed long-term heightened chromosomal aberrations from I-131 exposure [81] [88]. These studies collectively demonstrate the utility of various cytogenetic biomarkers in assessing the genotoxic impact of I-131 therapy and monitoring long-term effects in nuclear medicine patients.

4. Future Prospect of Biodosimetry

Advancements in genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and transcriptomics have enhanced the biodosimetry field’s capabilities. These developments have also improved biodosimetry techniques, showcasing their potential for assessing radiation effects on large populations, aiding in individualized treatment planning, and evaluating long-term radiation risks based on individual sensitivity. Yet, traditional cytogenetic tests like DCs, MN, translocations, and PCC suffer from drawbacks such as time-consuming procedures, specialized expertise requirement, and limited accuracy. In the USA, an inovative “rapid on-site screening test” utilizing a finger-prick blood sample is under development, aiming to quickly identify radiation exposure levels and prioritize clinical care for affected individuals. This test employs enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to detect radiation-induced changes in blood plasma proteins, providing results within 24 hours to 14 days post-exposure [97]. Notably, it has been successful in distinguishing radiation doses below and above 2 Gy during cancer radiation therapy [98]. The field of proteomics also promises to be a valuable asset in evaluating levels of radiation exposure and characterizing radiation injury biomarkers [99].

Another innovative approach, employing peptide nucleic acid (PNA) probes for scoring radiation-induced DNA damage, offers rapid, accurate, and cost-effective biodosimetry [100]. These probes have improved the scoring of dicentric and ring chromosomes in mitosis-induced lymphocytes and PCC in non-stimulated lymphocytes. Additionally, these probes can enhance the identification of MN in cells, making this common test more useful [101]. Experts suggest that this method could revolutionize DNA damage assessment, making radiation effects measurement more efficient through automation [102].

Furthermore, gene expression analysis is emerging as a promising on-site method for swiftly assessing radiation effects. A portable device employing nanopore sequencing has been introduced to detect radiation-induced changes in 46 human genes in PBLs [103]. Additionally, machine learning and deep learning techniques are being employed for high-throughput gene analysis and the evaluation of DCs and CBMN assays [104]-[106]. In the area of nuclear medicine, advancements in radiopharmaceuticals are paving the way for theranostics, where a single drug serves both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, offering exciting prospects [107]. Moreover, artificial intelligence (AI) is being integrated into clinical practice, aiding in disease prediction and treatment planning. AI has shown success in predicting conditions like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and diagnosing sarcoma based on DNA data [108]-[110].

Recently, machine learning and deep learning have made notable progress across various scientific fields. For instance, deep learning systems have been developed for automated dose estimation using the dicentric assay [111]. Machine learning has also been used to predict individual radiosensitivity based on telomere length data [112]. These developments underscore the versatile applications of machine learning in different scientific fields, including biodosimetry. The integration of machine learning and artificial intelligence-based algorithms with biodosimetry holds great promise. These algorithms can efficiently process vast datasets, accurately predict radiation doses, and play a crucial role in diagnosing and treating radiation-induced illnesses. It is imperative for the biodosimetry community to closely monitor the advancements in this emerging research area.

Figure 3. A proposed (A-D) updated scheme adding biodosimetry based investigation in lodine-131 therapy.

5. Conclusions

Dosimetric biomarkers, utilizing advanced methods like genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and EPR spectroscopy, have been effective in understanding the cellular impact of radiation, particularly in nuclear accidents and medical procedures, although there is limited radiobiology data available from the nuclear medicine clinics. This is due to the inherent characteristics of radioiodine-131 treatment procedures. Through incorporation of biodosimetry based investigation in clinical nuclear medicine trials, as shown in Figure 3, would increase radioiodine treatment data availability.

Multiparametric evaluations in biodosimetry are crucial for sensitivity and specificity across various exposure scenarios. Future research should focus on identifying markers for different types of radiation and internal exposure, areas where knowledge is currently limited. In radiation emergencies, rapid field-deployable technologies for blood and tissue sampling, along with comprehensive dose estimation techniques, need to integrate into emergency response strategies. Biodosimetry allows for individualized radiosensitivity assessment, which is challenging with traditional dose quantification. For radiation-based procedures, assessing DNA damage through biodosimetry is crucial for long-term genotoxic effects. Gathering data on variations, confounding variables, inter-laboratory disparities, and reproducibility is essential for developing reliable dose estimation algorithms. As technology advances, full automation of cytogenetic analysis and AI-driven data analysis will likely enhance the accuracy of dose projections in biodosimetry.

Disclosure Statement

The authors confirm that they do not have any associations or participation in any organization or entity that holds financial or non-financial interests related to the subject matter or materials discussed in this article.

Author Contributions

Md. Ziaur Rahman conceived the idea and is responsible for drafting the initial manuscript. Safaiatul Islam and Abu Hena Mostofa Kamal also contributed to the drafting and preparation of the manuscript. A.Y.K. Md. Masud Rana and P. K. Roy provided revisions to the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1]	Akahane, K., Yonai, S., Fukuda, S., Miyahara, N., Yasuda, H., Iwaoka, K., et al. (2012) The Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident and Exposures in the Environment. The Environmentalist, 32, 136-143.[CrossRef]
[2]	Giussani, A., Lopez, M.A., Romm, H., Testa, A., Ainsbury, E.A., Degteva, M., et al. (2020) Eurados Review of Retrospective Dosimetry Techniques for Internal Exposures to Ionising Radiation and Their Applications. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 59, 357-387.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[3]	Bender, M.A. and Gooch, P.C. (1962) Types and Rates of X-Ray-Induced Chromosome Aberrations in Human Blood Irradiated in Vitro. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 48, 522-532.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4]	Abe, Y., Miura, T., Yoshida, M.A., Ujiie, R., Kurosu, Y., Kato, N., et al. (2015) Increase in Dicentric Chromosome Formation after a Single CT Scan in Adults. Scientific Reports, 5, Article No. 13882.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[5]	Rogan, P.K., Mucaki, E.J., Shirley, B.C., Li, Y., Wilkins, R.C., Norton, F., et al. (2021) Automated Cytogenetic Biodosimetry at Population-Scale. Radiation, 1, 79-94.[CrossRef]
[6]	Vinnikov, V. and Belyakov, O. (2022) Clinical Applications of Biological Dosimetry in Patients Exposed to Low Dose Radiation Due to Radiological, Imaging or Nuclear Medicine Procedures. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 52, 114-139.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7]	Sharma, R., Rana, S., Kumar, R. and Sultana, S. (2010) Radiation-Induced Biomarkers for the Detection and Assessment of Absorbed Radiation Doses. Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences, 2, 189-196.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8]	Pernot, E., Hall, J., Baatout, S., Benotmane, M.A., Blanchardon, E., Bouffler, S., et al. (2012) Ionizing Radiation Biomarkers for Potential Use in Epidemiological Studies. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research, 751, 258-286.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[9]	Hall, J., Jeggo, P.A., West, C., Gomolka, M., Quintens, R., Badie, C., et al. (2017) Ionizing Radiation Biomarkers in Epidemiological Studies—An Update. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research, 771, 59-84.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[10]	Vinnikov, V., Hande, M.P., Wilkins, R., Wojcik, A., Zubizarreta, E. and Belyakov, O. (2020) Prediction of the Acute or Late Radiation Toxicity Effects in Radiotherapy Patients Using ex Vivo Induced Biodosimetric Markers: A Review. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 10, Article 285.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11]	IAEA (2011) Cytogenetic Dosimetry: Applications in Preparedness for and Response to Radiation Emergencies EPR-Biodosimetry, 2011, 59-79.
[12]	Kanda, R. (1999) Easy Biodosimetry for High-Dose Radiation Exposures Using Drug-Induced, Prematurely Condensed Chromosomes. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 75, 441-446.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13]	Sevan’kaev, A.V., Lloyd, D.C., Edwards, A.A., Khvostunov, I.K., Mikhailova, G.F., Golub, E.V., et al. (2004) A Cytogenetic Follow-Up of Some Highly Irradiated Victims of the Chernobyl Accident. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 113, 152-161.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14]	Natarajan, A.T., Santos, S.J., Darroudi, F., Hadjidikova, V., Vermeulen, S., Chatterjee, S., et al. (1998) 137 Cesium-Induced Chromosome Aberrations Analyzed by Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization: Eight Years Follow up of the Goiânia Radiation Accident Victims. Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis, 400, 299-312.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15]	Sasaki, M.S., Kamada, N., Kodama, Y. and Kodama, S. (2001) Chromosome Aberration Analysis in Persons Exposed to Low-Level Radiation from the JCO Criticality Accident in Tokai-Mura. Journal of Radiation Research, 42, S107-S116.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16]	Lloyd, D.C., Edwards, A.A., Moquet, J.E. and Guerrero-Carbajal, Y.C. (2000) The Role of Cytogenetics in Early Triage of Radiation Casualties. Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 52, 1107-1112.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[17]	Voisin, P. (2001) The Cytogenetic Dosimetry of Recent Accidental Overexposure. Cellular and Molecular Biology, 47, 557-564.
[18]	Alexander, G.A., Swartz, H.M., Amundson, S.A., Blakely, W.F., Buddemeier, B., Gallez, B., et al. (2007) Biodosepr-2006 Meeting: Acute Dosimetry Consensus Committee Recommendations on Biodosimetry Applications in Events Involving Uses of Radiation by Terrorists and Radiation Accidents. Radiation Measurements, 42, 972-996.[CrossRef]
[19]	Flegal, F.N., Devantier, Y., Marro, L. and Wilkins, R.C. (2012) Validation of Quickscan Dicentric Chromosome Analysis for High Throughput Radiation Biological Dosimetry. Health Physics, 102, 143-153.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20]	Sudprasert, W., Belyakov, O.V. and Tashiro, S. (2021) Biological and Internal Dosimetry for Radiation Medicine: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Journal of Radiation Research, 63, 247-254.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[21]	Bhavani, M., Tamizh Selvan, G., Kaur, H., Adhikari, J.S., Vijayalakshmi, J., et al. (2014) Dicentric Chromosome Aberration Analysis Using Giemsa and Centromere Specific Fluorescence In-Situ Hybridization for Biological Dosimetry: An Inter and Intra-Laboratory Comparison in Indian Laboratories. Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 92, 85-90.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[22]	Fenech, M. and Morley, A. (1985) Solutions to the Kinetic Problem in the Micronucleus Assay. Cytobios, 43, 233-246.
[23]	Kirsch-Volders, M. (2001) Inclusion of Micronuclei in Non-Divided Mononuclear Lymphocytes and Necrosis/Apoptosis May Provide a More Comprehensive Cytokinesis Block Micronucleus Assay for Biomonitoring Purposes. Mutagenesis, 16, 51-58.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[24]	Huber, R., Salassidis, K., Kulka, U., Braselmann, H. and Bauchinger, M. (1996) Detection of Centromeres in Vinblastine and Radiation-Induced Micronuclei of Human Lymphocytes Using FISH with a α Satellite Pancentromeric DNA Probe. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 27, 105-109.[CrossRef]
[25]	Thierens, H. (1999) Inter-Laboratory Comparison of Cytogenetic Endpoints for the Biomonitoring of Radiological Workers. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 75, 23-34.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[26]	Pala, F.S. (2008) The Effects of Micronuclei with Whole Chromosomes on Biological Dose Estimation. Turkish Journal of Biology, 32, 283-290.
[27]	Fenech, M. (2007) Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus Cytome Assay. Nature Protocols, 2, 1084-1104.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[28]	Lee, T., O’Brien, K.F., Naves, J.L., Christie, K.I., Arastu, H.H., Eaves, G.S., et al. (2000) Micronuclei in Lymphocytes of Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, 469, 63-70.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[29]	Fenech, M. (2000) The in Vitro Micronucleus Technique. Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis, 455, 81-95.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[30]	Grawé, J., Biko, J., Lorenz, R., Reiners, C., Stopper, H., Vershenya, S., et al. (2005) Evaluation of the Reticulocyte Micronucleus Assay in Patients Treated with Radioiodine for Thyroid Cancer. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, 583, 12-25.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[31]	Gersey, B., Sodolak, J., Hada, M., Saganti, P., Wilkins, R., Cucinotta, F., et al. (2007) Micronuclei Induction in Human Fibroblasts Exposed in Vitro to Los Alamos High-Energy Neutrons. Advances in Space Research, 40, 1754-1757.[CrossRef]
[32]	Thierens, H., Vral, A. and De Ridder, L. (1996) A Cytogenetic Study of Radiological Workers: Effect of Age, Smoking and Radiation Burden on the Micronucleus Frequency. Mutation Research/Environmental Mutagenesis and Related Subjects, 360, 75-82.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[33]	Thomas, P., Umegaki, K. and Fenech, M. (2003) Nucleoplasmic Bridges Are a Sensitive Measure of Chromosome Rearrangement in the Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus Assay. Mutagenesis, 18, 187-194.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[34]	Fenech, M. (2010) The Lymphocyte Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus Cytome Assay and Its Application in Radiation Biodosimetry. Health Physics, 98, 234-243.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[35]	Mikhalevich, L.S., De Zwart, F.A., Perepetskaya, G.A., et al. (2000) Radiation Effects in Lymphocytes of Children Living in a Chernobyl Contaminated Region of Belarus. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 76, 1377-1385.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[36]	IAEA (2000) The Radiological Accident in Istanbul Vienna Austria. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1102_web.pdf
[37]	Gerard, J., Myint, A.S., Barbet, N., Dejean, C., Thamphya, B., Gal, J., et al. (2022) Targeted Radiotherapy Using Contact X-Ray Brachytherapy 50 Kv. Cancers, 14, Article 1313.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[38]	McNamee, J.P., Flegal, F.N., Greene, H.B., Marro, L. and Wilkins, R.C. (2009) Validation of the Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus (CBMN) Assay for Use as a Triage Biological Dosimetry Tool. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 135, 232-242.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[39]	Rodrigues, M.A., Beaton-Green, L.A., Wilkins, R.C. and Fenech, M.F. (2018) The Potential for Complete Automated Scoring of the Cytokinesis Block Micronucleus Cytome Assay Using Imaging Flow Cytometry. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, 836, 53-64.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[40]	Repin, M., Pampou, S., Garty, G. and Brenner, D.J. (2019) Rabit-II: A Fully-Automated Micronucleus Assay System with Shortened Time to Result. Radiation Research, 191, 232-236.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[41]	Ting Goh, V.S., Fujishima, Y., Nakayama, R., Takebayashi, K., Yoshida, M.A., Kasai, K., et al. (2023) Manual Scoring with Shortened 48 H Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus Assay Feasible for Triage in the Event of a Mass-Casualty Radiation Accident. Radiation Research, 199, 385-395.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[42]	Buckton, K., Jacobs, P., Brown, W.M.C. and Doll, R. (1962) A Study of the Chromosome Damage Persisting after X-Ray Therapy for Ankylosing Spondylitis. The Lancet, 280, 676-682.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[43]	Roukos, V., Burman, B. and Misteli, T. (2013) The Cellular Etiology of Chromosome Translocations. Current Opinion in Cell Biology, 25, 357-364.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[44]	Andreassi, M.G., Little, M.P., et al. (2021) Chromosome Aberrations in a Group of People Exposed to Radioactive Releases from the Three Mile Island Nuclear Accident and Inferences for Radiation Effects. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22, Article 7504.
[45]	Speicher, M.R., Ballard, S.G. and Ward, D.C. (1996) Karyotyping Human Chromosomes by Combinatorial Multi-Fluor Fish. Nature Genetics, 12, 368-375.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[46]	Goh, V.S.T., Fujishima, Y., Abe, Y., Sakai, A., Yoshida, M.A., Ariyoshi, K., et al. (2019) Construction of Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization (FISH) Translocation Dose-Response Calibration Curve with Multiple Donor Data Sets Using R, Based on ISO 20046: 2019 Recommendations. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 95, 1668-1684.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[47]	Grégoire, E., Roy, L., Buard, V., Delbos, M., Durand, V., Martin-Bodiot, C., et al. (2018) Twenty Years of Fish-Based Translocation Analysis for Retrospective Ionizing Radiation Biodosimetry. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 94, 248-258.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[48]	Tanaka, K., Satoh, K. and Kohda, A. (2014) Dose and Dose-Rate Response of Lymphocyte Chromosome Aberrations in Mice Chronically Irradiated within a Low-Dose-Rate Range after Age Adjustment. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 159, 38-45.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[49]	Ohtaki, K., Shimba, H., Awa, A.A. and Sofuni, T. (1982) Comparison of Type and Frequency of Chromosome Aberrations by Conventional and G-Staining Methods in Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Survivors. Journal of Radiation Research, 23, 441-449.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[50]	Sposto, R., Cordova, K.A., Hamasaki, K., Nakamura, N., Noda, A. and Kodama, Y. (2023) The Association of Radiation Exposure with Stable Chromosome Aberrations in Atomic Bomb Survivors Based on DS02R1 Dosimetry and FISH Methods. Radiation Research, 199, 170-181.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[51]	Kumagai, E., Tanaka, R., Kumagai, T., Onomichi, M. and Sawada, S. (1990) Effects of Long-Term Radiation Exposure on Chromosomal Aberrations in Radiological Technologists. Journal of Radiation Research, 31, 270-279.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[52]	Roy, L., Gregoire, E., Durand, V., Buard, V., Delbos, M., Paillole, N., et al. (2006) Study of the Tools Available in Biological Dosimetry to Estimate the Dose in Cases of Accidental Complex Overexposure to Ionizing Radiation: The Lilo Accident. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 82, 39-48.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[53]	McKenna, M.J., Robinson, E., Taylor, L., Tompkins, C., Cornforth, M.N., Simon, S.L., et al. (2019) Chromosome Translocations, Inversions and Telomere Length for Retrospective Biodosimetry on Exposed U.S. Atomic Veterans. Radiation Research, 191, 311-322.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[54]	Johnson, R.T. and Rao, P.N. (1970) Mammalian Cell Fusion: Induction of Premature Chromosome Condensation in Interphase Nuclei. Nature, 226, 717-722.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[55]	Gotoh, E., Asakawa, Y. and Kosaka, H. (1995) Inhibition of Protein Serine/Threonine Phosphatases Directly Induces Premature Chromosome Condensation in Mammalian Somatic Cells. Biomedical Research, 16, 63-68.[CrossRef]
[56]	Lamadrid, A.I., García, O., Delbos, M., Voisin, P. and Roy, L. (2007) PCC-Ring Induction in Human Lymphocytes Exposed to Gamma and Neutron Irradiation. Journal of Radiation Research, 48, 1-6.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[57]	Balakrishnan, S., Shirsath, k., Bhat, N. and Anjaria, K. (2010) Biodosimetry for High Dose Accidental Exposures by Drug Induced Premature Chromosome Condensation (PCC) Assay. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, 699, 11-16.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[58]	Pujol, M., Barquinero, J., Puig, P., Puig, R., Caballín, M.R. and Barrios, L. (2014) A New Model of Biodosimetry to Integrate Low and High Doses. PLOS ONE, 9, e114137.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[59]	Hayata, I., Kanda, R., Minamihisamatsu, M., Furukawa, A. and Sasaki, M.S. (2001) Cytogenetical Dose Estimation for 3 Severely Exposed Patients in the JCO Criticality Accident in Tokai-Mura. Journal of Radiation Research, 42, S149-S155.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[60]	Darroudi, F., Natarajan, A.T., Bentvelzen, P.A.J., Heidt, P.J., Van Rotterdam, A., Zoetelief, J., et al. (1998) Detection of Total and Partial-Body Irradiation in a Monkey Model: A Comparative Study of Chromosomal Aberration, Micronucleus and Premature Chromosome Condensation Assays. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 74, 207-215.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[61]	Terzoudi, G.I., Pantelias, G., Darroudi, F., Barszczewska, K., Buraczewska, I., Depuydt, J., et al. (2016) Dose Assessment Intercomparisons within the RENEB Network Using G0-Lymphocyte Prematurely Condensed Chromosomes (PCC Assay). International Journal of Radiation Biology, 93, 48-57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[62]	Gonzalez, J.E., Romero, I., Gregoire, E., Martin, C., Lamadrid, A.I., Voisin, P., et al. (2014) Biodosimetry Estimation Using the Ratio of the Longest: Shortest Length in the Premature Chromosome Condensation (PCC) Method Applying Autocapture and Automatic Image Analysis. Journal of Radiation Research, 55, 862-865.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[63]	Selvan Gnana Sekaran, T., Ricoul, M., Brochard, P., Herate, C. and Sabatier, L. (2019) An Alternative Approach for the Induction of Premature Chromosome Condensation in Human Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes Using Mitotic Akodon Cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 96, 214-219.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[64]	Ryan, T.L., Pantelias, A.G., Terzoudi, G.I., Pantelias, G.E. and Balajee, A.S. (2019) Use of Human Lymphocyte G0 PCCs to Detect Intra and Inter-Chromosomal Aberrations for Early Radiation Biodosimetry and Retrospective Assessment of Radiation-Induced Effects. PLOS ONE, 14, e0216081.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[65]	Rogakou, E.P., Boon, C., Redon, C. and Bonner, W.M. (1999) Megabase Chromatin Domains Involved in DNA Double-Strand Breaks in Vivo. The Journal of Cell Biology, 146, 905-916.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[66]	Kuefner, M.A., Grudzenski, S., Hamann, J., Achenbach, S., Lell, M., Anders, K., et al. (2010) Effect of CT Scan Protocols on X-Ray-Induced DNA Double-Strand Breaks in Blood Lymphocytes of Patients Undergoing Coronary CT Angiography. European Radiology, 20, 2917-2924.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[67]	Brand, M., Sommer, M., Achenbach, S., Anders, K., Lell, M., Löbrich, M., et al. (2012) X-Ray Induced DNA Double-Strand Breaks in Coronary CT Angiography: Comparison of Sequential, Low-Pitch Helical and High-Pitch Helical Data Acquisition. European Journal of Radiology, 81, e357-e362.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[68]	Raavi, V., Basheerudeen, S.A.S., Jagannathan, V., Joseph, S., Chaudhury, N.K. and Venkatachalam, P. (2016) Frequency of Gamma H2AX Foci in Healthy Volunteers and Health Workers Occupationally Exposed to X-Irradiation and Its Relevance in Biological Dosimetry. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 55, 339-347.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[69]	El-Sayed, T., Patel, A.S., Cho, J.S., Kelly, J.A., Ludwinski, F.E., Saha, P., et al. (2017) Radiation-Induced DNA Damage in Operators Performing Endovascular Aortic Repair. Circulation, 136, 2406-2416.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[70]	Ha, M., Yoo, K. and Cho, S. (2002) Glycophorin a Mutant Frequency in Radiation Workers at the Nuclear Power Plants and a Hospital. Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis, 501, 45-56.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[71]	Chen, B., Dai, Q., Zhang, Q., Yan, P., Wang, A., Qu, L., et al. (2019) The Relationship among Occupational Irradiation, DNA Methylation Status, and Oxidative Damage in Interventional Physicians. Medicine, 98, e17373.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[72]	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. Experimental Cell Research, 175, 184-191.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[73]	Fang, L., Li, J., Li, W., Mao, X., Ma, Y., Hou, D., et al. (2019) Assessment of Genomic Instability in Medical Workers Exposed to Chronic Low-Dose X-Rays in Northern China. Dose-Response, 17, 1-10.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[74]	Lloyd, D.C., Purrott, R.J., Dolphin, G.W., Horton, P.W., Halnan, K.E., Scott, J.S., et al. (1976) A Comparison of Physical and Cytogenetic Estimates of Radiation Dose in Patients Treated with Iodine-131 for Thyroid Carcinoma. International Journal of Radiation Biology and Related Studies in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine, 30, 473-485.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[75]	Livingston, G.K., Foster, A.E. and Elson, H.R. (1993) Effect of in Vivo Exposure to Iodine-131 on the Frequency and Persistence of Micronuclei in Human Lymphocytes. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 40, 367-375.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[76]	Baugnet-Mahieu, L., Lemaire, M., Léonard, E.D., Léonard, A., Gerber, G.B., Leonard, E.D., et al. (1994) Chromosome Aberrations after Treatment with Radioactive Iodine for Thyroid Cancer. Radiation Research, 140, 429-431.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[77]	M’Kacher, R., Legal, J.D., Schlumberger, M., et al. (1996) Biological Dosimetry in Patients Treated with Iodine-131 for Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 37, 1860-1864.
[78]	M’Kacher, R. and Legal, J.D., Schlumberger, M., et al. (1998) Biologic Dosimetry in Thyroid Cancer Patients after Repeated Treatments with Iodine-131. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 39, 825-829.
[79]	Monsieurs, M.A., Thierens, H.M., Van De Wiele, C., Vral, A.M., Meirlaen, I.A., De Winter, H.A., et al. (1999) Estimation of Risk Based on Biological Dosimetry for Patients Treated with Radioiodine. Nuclear Medicine Communications, 20, 911-917.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[80]	Gutiérrez, S., Carbonell, E., Galofré, P., Creus, A. and Marcos, R. (1999) Cytogenetic Damage after 131-Iodine Treatment for Hyperthyroidism and Thyroid Cancer. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 26, 1589-1596.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[81]	Puerto, S., Marcos, R., Ramı́rez, M.J., Galofré, P., Creus, A. and Surrallés, J. (2000) Equal Induction and Persistence of Chromosome Aberrations Involving Chromosomes 1, 4 and 10 in Thyroid Cancer Patients Treated with Radioactive Iodine. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, 469, 147-158.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[82]	Lambert, V., Thierens, H., Monsieurs, M., Roncancio, C. and Laurent, C. (2001) Translocation Frequencies Measured in Patients One Year after Radioactive Iodine Therapy for Thyrotoxicosis. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 77, 679-685.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[83]	Popova, L., Hadjidekova, V., Hadjieva, T., et al. (2005) Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus Test in Patients Undergoing Radioiodine Therapy for Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma. Hellenic Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 8, 54-57.
[84]	Federico, G., Boni, G., Fabiani, B., Fiore, L., Lazzeri, P., Massart, F., et al. (2008) No Evidence of Chromosome Damage in Children and Adolescents with Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma after Receiving 131I Radiometabolic Therapy, as Evaluated by Micronucleus Assay and Microarray Analysis. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 35, 2113-2121.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[85]	Nascimento, A.C.H., Lipsztein, J.L., Corbo, R. and Rebelo, A.M.O. (2010) 131I Biokinetics and Cytogenetic Dose Estimates in Ablation Treatment of Thyroid Carcinoma. Health Physics, 99, 457-463.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[86]	Hernandez-Jardines, A., Molina, B., del Castillo, V., et al. (2010) Detection of Short-Term Chromosomal Damage Due to Therapeutic 131I Exposure in Patients with Thyroid Cancer. Revista de Investigación Clínica, 62, 31-38.
[87]	Vrndic, O.B., Milosevic-Djordjevic, O.M., Mijatovic Teodorovic, L.C., et al. (2013) Correlation between Micronuclei Frequency in Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes and Retention of 131-I in Thyroid Cancer Patients. The Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine, 229, 115-124.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[88]	Livingston, G.K., Khvostunov, I.K., Gregoire, E., Barquinero, J., Shi, L. and Tashiro, S. (2016) Cytogenetic Effects of Radioiodine Therapy: A 20-Year Follow-Up Study. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 55, 203-213.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[89]	Khvostunov, I.K., Saenko, V.A., Krylov, V., Rodichev, A. and Yamashita, S. (2017) Cytogenetic Biodosimetry and Dose-Rate Effect after Radioiodine Therapy for Thyroid Cancer. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 56, 213-226.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[90]	Cebulska-Wasilewska, A., Krzysiek, M., Krajewska, G., Stępień, A. and Krajewski, P. (2017) Retrospective Biological Dosimetry at Low and High Doses of Radiation and Radioiodine Impact on Individual Susceptibility to Ionizing Radiation. Genome Integrity, 8, 1-8.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[91]	Santos, L.S., Gil, O.M., et al. (2020) Micronuclei Formation Upon Radioiodine Therapy for Well-Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: The Influence of DNA Repair Genes Variants. Genes, 11, Article 1083.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[92]	Livingston, G.K., Escalona, M., Foster, A. and Balajee, A.S. (2017) Persistent in Vivo Cytogenetic Effects of Radioiodine Therapy: A 21-Year Follow-Up Study Using Multicolor Fish. Journal of Radiation Research, 59, 10-17.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[93]	Livingston, G.K., Ryan, T.L., Smith, T.L., Escalona, M.B., Foster, A.E. and Balajee, A.S. (2019) Detection of Simple, Complex, and Clonal Chromosome Translocations Induced by Internal Radioiodine Exposure: A Cytogenetic Follow-Up Case Study after 25 Years. Cytogenetic and Genome Research, 159, 169-181.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[94]	Khvostunov, I.K., Nasonova, E., Krylov, V., Rodichev, A., Kochetova, T., Shepel, N., et al. (2023) Cytogenetic Damage Induced by Radioiodine Therapy: A Follow-Up Case Study. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24, Article 5128.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[95]	Monsieurs, M.A., Thierens, H.M., Vral, A., Brans, B., De Ridder, L. and Dierckx, R.A. (2001) Patient Dosimetry after 131I-MIBG Therapy for Neuroblastoma and Carcinoid Tumours. Nuclear Medicine Communications, 22, 367-374.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[96]	Monsieurs, M.A., Bacher, K., Brans, B., Vral, A., Ridder, L., Dierckx, R.A., et al. (2003) Patient Dosimetry for 131i-Lipiodol Therapy. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 30, 554-561.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[97]	Wathen, L.K., Eder, P.S., Horwith, G. and Wallace, R.L. (2020) Using Biodosimetry to Enhance the Public Health Response to a Nuclear Incident. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 97, S6-S9.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[98]	Balog, R.P., Bacher, R., Chang, P., Greenstein, M., Jammalamadaka, S., Javitz, H., et al. (2019) Development of a Biodosimeter for Radiation Triage Using Novel Blood Protein Biomarker Panels in Humans and Non-Human Primates. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 96, 22-34.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[99]	Singh, V.K., Srivastava, M. and Seed, T.M. (2023) Protein Biomarkers for Radiation Injury and Testing of Medical Countermeasure Efficacy: Promises, Pitfalls, and Future Directions. Expert Review of Proteomics, 20, 221-246.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[100]	Shi, L., Fujioka, K., Sun, J., Kinomura, A., Inaba, T., Ikura, T., et al. (2012) A Modified System for Analyzing Ionizing Radiation-Induced Chromosome Abnormalities. Radiation Research, 177, 533-538.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[101]	Zaguia, N., Laplagne, E., Colicchio, B., Cariou, O., Al Jawhari, M., Heidingsfelder, L., et al. (2020) A New Tool for Genotoxic Risk Assessment: Reevaluation of the Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus Assay Using Semi-Automated Scoring Following Telomere and Centromere Staining. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, 850, Article 503143.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[102]	M’Kacher, R., Colicchio, B., Junker, S., El Maalouf, E., Heidingsfelder, L., Plesch, A., et al. (2023) High Resolution and Automatable Cytogenetic Biodosimetry Using in Situ Telomere and Centromere Hybridization for the Accurate Detection of DNA Damage: An Overview. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24, Article 5699.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[103]	Cruz-Garcia, L., O’Brien, G., Sipos, B., Mayes, S., Love, M.I., Turner, D.J., et al. (2019) Generation of a Transcriptional Radiation Exposure Signature in Human Blood Using Long-Read Nanopore Sequencing. Radiation Research, 193, 143-154.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[104]	Royba, E., Repin, M., Pampou, S., Karan, C., Brenner, D.J. and Garty, G. (2019) Rabit-ii-DCA: A Fully-Automated Dicentric Chromosome Assay in Multiwell Plates. Radiation Research, 192, 311-323.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[105]	Repin, M., Pampou, S., Brenner, D.J. and Garty, G. (2019) The Use of a Centrifuge-Free Rabit-II System for High-Throughput Micronucleus Analysis. Journal of Radiation Research, 61, 68-72.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[106]	Shirley, B.C., Knoll, J.H.M., Moquet, J., Ainsbury, E., Pham, N., Norton, F., et al. (2020) Estimating Partial-Body Ionizing Radiation Exposure by Automated Cytogenetic Biodosimetry. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 96, 1492-1503.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[107]	Kaur, C.D., Mishra, K.K., Sahu, A., et al. (2021) Theranostics: New Era in Nuclear Medicine and Radiopharmaceuticals Medical Isotopes. IntechOpen.[CrossRef]
[108]	Imamura, K., Yada, Y., Izumi, Y., Morita, M., Kawata, A., Arisato, T., et al. (2021) Prediction Model of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis by Deep Learning with Patient Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. Annals of Neurology, 89, 1226-1233.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[109]	Koelsche, C., Schrimpf, D., Stichel, D., et al. (2021) Sarcoma Classification by DNA Methylation Profiling. Nature Communications, 12, Article No. 498.
[110]	Gupta, R., Bhandari, M., Grover, A., Al-shehari, T., Kadrie, M., Alfakih, T., et al. (2024) Predictive Modeling of ALS Progression: An XGBoost Approach Using Clinical Features. BioData Mining, 17, Article No. 54.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[111]	Jang, S., Shin, S., Lee, M., Han, S., Choi, C., Kim, S., et al. (2020) Feasibility Study on Automatic Interpretation of Radiation Dose Using Deep Learning Technique for Dicentric Chromosome Assay. Radiation Research, 195, 163-172.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[112]	Luxton, J.J., McKenna, M.J., Lewis, A.M., Taylor, L.E., Jhavar, S.G., Swanson, G.P., et al. (2021) Telomere Length Dynamics and Chromosomal Instability for Predicting Individual Radiosensitivity and Risk via Machine Learning. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 11, Article 188.[CrossRef] [PubMed]