RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021: Inter-Assay Comparison of Eight Dosimetry Assays.

Tools for radiation exposure reconstruction are required to support the medical management of radiation victims in radiological or nuclear incidents. Different biological and physical dosimetry assays can be used for various exposure scenarios to estimate the dose of ionizing radiation a person has absorbed. Regular validation of the techniques through inter-laboratory comparisons (ILC) is essential to guarantee high quality results. In the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison, the performance quality of established cytogenetic assays [dicentric chromosome assay (DCA), cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay (CBMN), stable chromosomal translocation assay (FISH) and premature chromosome condensation assay (PCC)] was tested in comparison to molecular biological assays [gamma-H2AX foci (gH2AX), gene expression (GE)] and physical dosimetry-based assays [electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR), optically or thermally stimulated luminescence (LUM)]. Three blinded coded samples (e.g., blood, enamel or mobiles) were exposed to 0, 1.2 or 3.5 Gy X-ray reference doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min). These doses roughly correspond to clinically relevant groups of unexposed to low exposed (0-1 Gy), moderately exposed (1-2 Gy, no severe acute health effects expected) and highly exposed individuals (>2 Gy, requiring early intensive medical care). In the frame of the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison, samples were sent to 86 specialized teams in 46 organizations from 27 nations for dose estimation and identification of three clinically relevant groups. The time for sending early crude reports and more precise reports was documented for each laboratory and assay where possible. The quality of dose estimates was analyzed with three different levels of granularity, 1. by calculating the frequency of correctly reported clinically relevant dose categories, 2. by determining the number of dose estimates within the uncertainty intervals recommended for triage dosimetry (±0.5 Gy or ±1.0 Gy for doses <2.5 Gy or >2.5 Gy), and 3. by calculating the absolute difference (AD) of estimated doses relative to the reference doses. In total, 554 dose estimates were submitted within the 6-week period given before the exercise was closed. For samples processed with the highest priority, earliest dose estimates/categories were reported within 5-10 h of receipt for GE, gH2AX, LUM, EPR, 2-3 days for DCA, CBMN and within 6-7 days for the FISH assay. For the unirradiated control sample, the categorization in the correct clinically relevant group (0-1 Gy) as well as the allocation to the triage uncertainty interval was, with the exception of a few outliers, successfully performed for all assays. For the 3.5 Gy sample the percentage of correct classifications to the clinically relevant group (≥2 Gy) was between 89-100% for all assays, with the exception of gH2AX. For the 1.2 Gy sample, an exact allocation to the clinically relevant group was more difficult and 0-50% or 0-48% of the estimates were wrongly classified into the lowest or highest dose categories, respectively. For the irradiated samples, the correct allocation to the triage uncertainty intervals varied considerably between assays for the 1.2 Gy (29-76%) and 3.5 Gy (17-100%) samples. While a systematic shift towards higher doses was observed for the cytogenetic-based assays, extreme outliers exceeding the reference doses 2-6 fold were observed for EPR, FISH and GE assays. These outliers were related to a particular material examined (tooth enamel for EPR assay, reported as kerma in enamel, but when converted into the proper quantity, i.e. to kerma in air, expected dose estimates could be recalculated in most cases), the level of experience of the teams (FISH) and methodological uncertainties (GE). This was the first RENEB ILC where everything, from blood sampling to irradiation and shipment of the samples, was organized and realized at the same institution, for several biological and physical retrospective dosimetry assays. Almost all assays appeared comparably applicable for the identification of unexposed and highly exposed individuals and the allocation of medical relevant groups, with the latter requiring medical support for the acute radiation scenario simulated in this exercise. However, extreme outliers or a systematic shift of dose estimates have been observed for some assays. Possible reasons will be discussed in the assay specific papers of this special issue. In summary, this ILC clearly demonstrates the need to conduct regular exercises to identify research needs, but also to identify technical problems and to optimize the design of future ILCs.

RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021: The Gene Expression Assay.

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

Validating Baboon Ex Vivo and In Vivo Radiation-Related Gene Expression with Corresponding Human Data.

The research for high-throughput diagnostic tests for victims of radio/nuclear incidents remains ongoing. In this context, we have previously identified candidate genes that predict risk of late-occurring hematologic acute radiation syndrome (HARS) in a baboon model. The goal of the current study was to validate these genes after radiation exposure in humans. We also examined ex vivo relative to in vivo measurements in both species and describe dose-response relationships. Eighteen baboons were irradiated in vivo to simulate different patterns of partial- or total-body irradiation (TBI), corresponding to an equivalent dose of 2.5 or 5 Sv. Human in vivo blood samples were obtained from patients exposed to different dose ranges: diagnostic computerized tomography (CT; 0.004-0.018 Sv); radiotherapy for prostate cancer (0.25-0.3 Sv); and TBI of leukemia patients (2 × 1.5 or 2 × 2 Sv, five patients each). Peripheral whole blood of another five baboons and human samples from five healthy donors were cultivated ex vivo and irradiated with 0-4 Sv. RNA was isolated pairwise before and 24 h after irradiation and converted into cDNA. Gene expression of six promising candidate genes found previously by us in a baboon model ( WNT3, POU2AF1, CCR7, ARG2, CD177, WLS), as well as three genes commonly used in ex vivo whole blood experiments ( FDXR, PCNA, DDB2) was measured using qRT-PCR. We confirmed the six baboon candidate genes in leukemia patients. However, expression for the candidate gene FDXR showed an inverse relationship, as it was downregulated in baboons and upregulated in human samples. Comparisons among the in vivo and ex vivo experiments revealed the same pattern in both species and indicated peripheral blood cells to represent the radiation-responsive targets causing WNT3 and POU2AF1 gene expression changes. CCR7, ARG2, CD177 and WLS appeared to be altered due to radiation-responsive targets other than the whole blood cells. Linear dose-response relationships of FDXR, WNT3 and POU2AF1 using human ex vivo samples corresponded with human in vivo samples, suggesting that ex vivo models for in vivo dose estimates can be used over a wide dose range (0.001-5 Sv for POU2AF1). In summary, we validated six baboon candidate genes in humans, but the FDXR measurements underscored the importance of independent assessments even when candidates from animal models have striking gene sequence homology to humans. Since whole blood cells represented the same radiation-responsive targets for FDXR, WNT3 and POU2AF1 gene expression changes, ex vivo cell culture models can be utilized for in vivo dose estimates over a dose range covering up to 3.5 log scales. These findings might be a step forward in the development of a gene expression-based high-throughput diagnostic test for populations involved in large-scale radio/nuclear incidents.

Examining Radiation-Induced In Vivo and In Vitro Gene Expression Changes of the Peripheral Blood in Different Laboratories for Biodosimetry Purposes: First RENEB Gene Expression Study.

The risk of a large-scale event leading to acute radiation exposure necessitates the development of high-throughput methods for providing rapid individual dose estimates. Our work addresses three goals, which align with the directive of the European Union's Realizing the European Network of Biodosimetry project (EU-RENB): 1. To examine the suitability of different gene expression platforms for biodosimetry purposes; 2. To perform this examination using blood samples collected from prostate cancer patients (in vivo) and from healthy donors (in vitro); and 3. To compare radiation-induced gene expression changes of the in vivo with in vitro blood samples. For the in vitro part of this study, EDTA-treated whole blood was irradiated immediately after venipuncture using single X-ray doses (1 Gy/min(-1) dose rate, 100 keV). Blood samples used to generate calibration curves as well as 10 coded (blinded) samples (0-4 Gy dose range) were incubated for 24 h in vitro, lysed and shipped on wet ice. For the in vivo part of the study PAXgene tubes were used and peripheral blood (2.5 ml) was collected from prostate cancer patients before and 24 h after the first fractionated 2 Gy dose of localized radiotherapy to the pelvis [linear accelerator (LINAC), 580 MU/min, exposure 1-1.5 min]. Assays were run in each laboratory according to locally established protocols using either microarray platforms (2 laboratories) or qRT-PCR (2 laboratories). Report times on dose estimates were documented. The mean absolute difference of estimated doses relative to the true doses (Gy) were calculated. Doses were also merged into binary categories reflecting aspects of clinical/diagnostic relevance. For the in vitro part of the study, the earliest report time on dose estimates was 7 h for qRT-PCR and 35 h for microarrays. Methodological variance of gene expression measurements (CV ≤10% for technical replicates) and interindividual variance (≤twofold for all genes) were low. Dose estimates based on one gene, ferredoxin reductase (FDXR), using qRT-PCR were as precise as dose estimates based on multiple genes using microarrays, but the precision decreased at doses ≥2 Gy. Binary dose categories comprising, for example, unexposed compared with exposed samples, could be completely discriminated with most of our methods. Exposed prostate cancer blood samples (n = 4) could be completely discriminated from unexposed blood samples (n = 4, P < 0.03, two-sided Fisher's exact test) without individual controls. This could be performed by introducing an in vitro-to-in vivo correction factor of FDXR, which varied among the laboratories. After that the in vitro-constructed calibration curves could be used for dose estimation of the in vivo exposed prostate cancer blood samples within an accuracy window of ±0.5 Gy in both contributing qRT-PCR laboratories. In conclusion, early and precise dose estimates can be performed, in particular at doses ≤2 Gy in vitro. Blood samples of prostate cancer patients exposed to 0.09-0.017 Gy could be completely discriminated from pre-exposure blood samples with the doses successfully estimated using adjusted in vitro-constructed calibration curves.