双中心和染色体易位产量的比较分析。

Dorota Młynarczyk, Pedro Puig, Joan F Barquinero, Carmen Armero, Virgilio Gómez-Rubio
{"title":"双中心和染色体易位产量的比较分析。","authors":"Dorota Młynarczyk, Pedro Puig, Joan F Barquinero, Carmen Armero, Virgilio Gómez-Rubio","doi":"10.1080/09553002.2024.2369077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Chromosomal dicentrics and translocations are commonly employed as biomarkers to estimate radiation doses. The main goal of this article is to perform a comparative analysis of yields of both types of aberrations. The objective is to determine if there are relevant distinctions between both yields, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of their respective suitability and accuracy in the estimation of radiation doses.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The analysis involved data from a partial-radiation simulation study with the calibration data obtained through two scoring methods: conventional and PAINT modified. Subsequently, a Bayesian bivariate zero-inflated Poisson model was employed to compare the posterior marginal density of the mean of dicentrics and translocations and assess the differences between them.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When employing the conventional method of scoring, the findings indicate that there is no notable disparity between the yield of observed translocations and dicentrics. However, when utilizing the PAINT modified method, a notable discrepancy is observed for higher doses, indicating a relevant difference in the mean number of the two types of aberrations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The choice of scoring method significantly influences the analysis of radiation-induced aberrations, especially when distinguishing between complex and simple chromosomal formations. Further research and analysis are necessary to gain a deeper understanding of the factors and mechanisms impacting the formation of dicentrics and translocations.</p>","PeriodicalId":94057,"journal":{"name":"International journal of radiation biology","volume":" ","pages":"1193-1201"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of the yields of dicentrics and chromosomal translocations.\",\"authors\":\"Dorota Młynarczyk, Pedro Puig, Joan F Barquinero, Carmen Armero, Virgilio Gómez-Rubio\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09553002.2024.2369077\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Chromosomal dicentrics and translocations are commonly employed as biomarkers to estimate radiation doses. The main goal of this article is to perform a comparative analysis of yields of both types of aberrations. The objective is to determine if there are relevant distinctions between both yields, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of their respective suitability and accuracy in the estimation of radiation doses.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The analysis involved data from a partial-radiation simulation study with the calibration data obtained through two scoring methods: conventional and PAINT modified. Subsequently, a Bayesian bivariate zero-inflated Poisson model was employed to compare the posterior marginal density of the mean of dicentrics and translocations and assess the differences between them.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When employing the conventional method of scoring, the findings indicate that there is no notable disparity between the yield of observed translocations and dicentrics. However, when utilizing the PAINT modified method, a notable discrepancy is observed for higher doses, indicating a relevant difference in the mean number of the two types of aberrations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The choice of scoring method significantly influences the analysis of radiation-induced aberrations, especially when distinguishing between complex and simple chromosomal formations. Further research and analysis are necessary to gain a deeper understanding of the factors and mechanisms impacting the formation of dicentrics and translocations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of radiation biology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1193-1201\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of radiation biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2024.2369077\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of radiation biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2024.2369077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:染色体二中心和易位通常被用作估算辐射剂量的生物标记。本文的主要目的是对这两种畸变的检出率进行比较分析。目的是确定这两种畸变率之间是否存在相关区别,从而全面评估它们各自在估算辐射剂量方面的适用性和准确性:分析涉及部分辐射模拟研究的数据,校准数据通过两种评分方法获得:传统评分法和 PAINT 改良评分法。随后,采用贝叶斯双变量零膨胀泊松模型来比较二中心和易位平均值的后验边际密度,并评估它们之间的差异:结果:采用传统的评分方法时,研究结果表明观察到的易位和二中心的产量之间没有明显的差异。然而,当使用 PAINT 改良方法时,观察到较高剂量时存在明显差异,这表明这两种畸变的平均数量存在相关差异:结论:评分方法的选择对辐射诱导畸变的分析有很大影响,尤其是在区分复杂和简单染色体畸变时。要更深入地了解影响双中心和易位形成的因素和机制,还需要进一步的研究和分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative analysis of the yields of dicentrics and chromosomal translocations.

Purpose: Chromosomal dicentrics and translocations are commonly employed as biomarkers to estimate radiation doses. The main goal of this article is to perform a comparative analysis of yields of both types of aberrations. The objective is to determine if there are relevant distinctions between both yields, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of their respective suitability and accuracy in the estimation of radiation doses.

Materials and methods: The analysis involved data from a partial-radiation simulation study with the calibration data obtained through two scoring methods: conventional and PAINT modified. Subsequently, a Bayesian bivariate zero-inflated Poisson model was employed to compare the posterior marginal density of the mean of dicentrics and translocations and assess the differences between them.

Results: When employing the conventional method of scoring, the findings indicate that there is no notable disparity between the yield of observed translocations and dicentrics. However, when utilizing the PAINT modified method, a notable discrepancy is observed for higher doses, indicating a relevant difference in the mean number of the two types of aberrations.

Conclusions: The choice of scoring method significantly influences the analysis of radiation-induced aberrations, especially when distinguishing between complex and simple chromosomal formations. Further research and analysis are necessary to gain a deeper understanding of the factors and mechanisms impacting the formation of dicentrics and translocations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信