medigraphic.com
Centro de Investigaciones Regionales Dr. Hideyo Noguchi, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán

2002, Number 2

Next >>

Rev Biomed 2002; 13 (2)

Increase in chromosomic aberrations and sister chromatid exchange in healthy individuals with laboral exposure to X rays

Ceballos-Quintal JM, Pinto-Escalante D, Canto-Herrera J

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 76-82
PDF size: 30.97 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction. Ionizing radiation produces different effects on humans, depending on the magnitude and source of exposure. One of these is laboral exposure to X rays, in which a chronic exposure of low doses may occur. Early identification of biological markers to recognize the risk of exposure result useful for the evaluation of high risk groups. In this study we analyze cytogenetic manifestations produced by labor exposure to diagnostic X rays, with the aim of identifying chromosomal changes in individuals exposed at different times and levels.
Material and Methods. A group of individuals exposed to X rays and another of healthy unexposed individuals were included. We carried out blood count and chromosomal analysis: chromosomal aberrations (CA) and sister chromatid exchange (SCE), on all subjects.
Results. A significant difference was found between the two groups for CA (0.42 ± 0.23 vs 0.12 ± 0.12, p ‹ 0.0001) and SCE (4.17 ± 0.82 vs 3.46 ± 0.50, p ‹ 0.01). Correlation analysis showed significant differences between CA % vs. years of exposure (p = 0.023) and SCE vs. years of exposure (p = 0.037). Blood count was normal for all individuals.
Comments. The differences found between the two groups identified early chromosomal effect produced by X-ray exposure; which increased with time. Cytogenetic damage ocurred earlier than hematological damage in this group.


REFERENCES

  1. Cockerham LG, Mickley GA, Walden TL, Jr Stuart BO. Ionizing Radiation. En: Hayes W, editor. Principles and Methods of Toxicology. Third Edition. New York: Raven Press, Ltd; 1994. p.447-91.

  2. Graham JM Jr., Jones KL, Brent RL. Contribution of clinical teratologists and geneticists to the evaluation of the etiology of congenital malformations alleged to be caused by environmental agents: ionizing radiation, electromagnetic fields, microwaves, radionuclides, and ultrasound. Teratology 1999; 59:307-13.

  3. Brent RL Reproductive and teratologic effects of lowfrequency electromagnetic fields: a review of in vivo and in vitro studies using animal models. Teratology 1999; 59:261-86.

  4. Jensh RP, Brent RL. Intrauterine effects of ultrasound: animal studies. Teratology 1999; 59:240-51.

  5. Brent RL. Utilization of developmental basic science principles in the evaluation of reproductive risks from preand postconception environmental radiation exposures. Teratology 1999; 59:182-204.

  6. Yaguchi H, Yoshida M, Ding GR, Shingu K, Miyakoshi J. Increased chromatid-type chromosomal aberrations in mouse m5S cells exposed to power-line frequency magnetic fields. Int J Radiat Biol 2000; 76:1677-84.

  7. Vijayalaxmi, Leal BZ, Meltz ML, Pickard WF, Bisht KS, Roti JL, et al. Cytogenetic studies in human blood lymphocytes exposed in vitro to radiofrequency radiation at a cellular telephone frequency (835.62 MHz, FDMA). Radiat Res 2001; 155:113-21.

  8. Wang Y. Handbook of radiactive radionuclides. Cleveland: The Chemical Rubber Co.; 1969. p.837-67.

  9. Sandberg AA. The chromosomes in human cancer and leukemia. New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc; 1983. p. 137-51.

  10. Gollnast HK, Vogel H. Radiation exposure in Computed Tomography. Aktuelle Radiol 1993; 3:20-3.

  11. Claus WD. Radiation Biology and Medicine. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, Reading; 1958. p 331.

  12. Marx MV, Niklason L, Mauger EA. Occupational radiation exposure to interventional radiologists: a prospective study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1992; 3: 597-606.

  13. Evans HJ, O’Riordan ML. Human Peripheral blood lymphocytes for the analysis of chromosome aberrations in mutagen tests. En: Kilbey BJ, Legator M, Nichols W, Ramel C, editors. Handbook of mutagenicity test procedures. New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company; 1977; p 261-74.

  14. Carrano AV, Natarajan AT. Considerations for population monitoring using cytogenetic techniques. Mut Res 1988; 204:379-406.

  15. Latt SA, Allen JW, Rogers WE, Juergens LA. In vitro and in vivo analysis of sister chromatid exchange formation. En: Kilbey BJ, Legator M, Nichols W, Ramel C editors. Handbook of mutagenicity test procedures. New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company; 1977. p. 275-91.

  16. WHO. Guidelines for the study of genetic effects in human populations. Environmental health criteria 1985; 46: 41-3.

  17. Bonsái S, Abbondandolo A, Camurri L, Del Prá L, DeFerrari M, Degrassi F, et al. Are chromosome aberrations in circulating lymphocytes predictive of future cancer onset in humans?. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1995; 79:133-5.

  18. Hagmar L, Brogegr A, Hansteen I, Heim S, Hoigsted B, Knudsen L, et al. Cancer risk in humans. Predicted by increased levels of chromosomal aberrations in lymphocytes: Nordic study group on the helth risk of chromosome damage. Cancer Res 1994; 54: 2919-92.

  19. Bonassi S, Hagmar L, Strömberg U, Huici M A, Tinnerberg H, Forni A, et al, and the European Study Group on Cytogenetic Biomarkers and Health (ESCH). Chromosomal aberrations in lymphocytes predict human cancer independently from exposure to carcinogens. Cancer Res. 2000; 60:1619-25.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com