Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T09:37:38.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Relevance of Intra-Cellular Damage to Effects in the Complex Organism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

R. H. Mole
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council, Radiobiological Research Unit, Harwell, Didcot, Berkshire.
Get access

Extract

As the three previous papers in this Symposium have shown (Ord and Stocken 1968; Evans 1968; Court-Brown 1968) the exploration of radiation effects within the cell has its own intrinsic fascination quite apart from its relevance to an understanding of the phenomena which may be observed after irradiation of the complex organism, vertebrate or invertebrate. Whitmore (cf. Whitmore Gulyas and Botond 1965) has been one of the pioneer workers on a previously unsuspected phenomenon, the quantitatively substantial recovery of the ability to divide which occurs within the first hour or two after exposure to low LET radiation. In cultures of mammalian cells in vitro this kind of recovery was shown to have nothing to do with cell division, to occur at all stages of the cell cycle, and to be little, if at all, affected by a reduction in temperature which would be expected a priori to modify profoundly the rate of chemical reactions. Whitmore's technique for synchronising asynchronously dividing cell cultures by the selective suicide of DNA synthesising cells following the incorporation of radioactively labelled DNA precursors with high specific activity has a wide application (Whitmore and Gulyas 1966). Workers from his laboratory have proposed an interesting approach to the real meaning of “ability to divide” and “recovery” based on the idea that there is a certain probability of failure at each cell division and that this probability may be permanently increased by exposure to radiation (Till, McCulloch and Siminovitch 1964). Thus radiation damage may be expressed by failure of cell division not only at the first or second divisions after exposure but also at any subsequent division in the distant future.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References to Literature

Atkins, N. B., and Baker, M. C., 1966. J. Natn. Cancer Inst., 36, 539.Google Scholar
Barnes, D. W. H., Bungay, G. T., and Mole, R. H., 1966. Int. J. Radiat. Biol., 11, 409.Google Scholar
Brown, J. A. H., Corp, M. J., and Mole, R. H., 1962. Int. J. Radiat. Biol., 5, 369.Google Scholar
Brown, J. A. H., Corp, M. J., and Westgarth, D. R., 1960. Int. J. Radiat. Biol., 2, 371.Google Scholar
Burnet, F. M., 1967. Lancet, 1967/1, 1171.Google Scholar
Casarett, G. W., 1965. A. Rep. Univ. Rochester, Atom. Energy Project, UR–668, 44.Google Scholar
Corp, M. J., and Mole, R. H., 1966. Int. J. Radiat. Biol., 11, 69.Google Scholar
Court-Brown, W. M., 1968. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. B., 70, 125131.Google Scholar
Court-Brown, W. M., and Tough, I. M., 1963. Adv. Cancer Res., 7, 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, D. R., and Evans, H. J., 1966. Adv. Radiat. Biol., 2, 243.Google Scholar
Elkind, M. M., and Sinclair, W., 1965. Curr. Topics Radiat., Res., 1, 165.Google Scholar
Evans, H. J., 1968. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. B., 70, 132151.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E., Hamerton, J. L., and Mole, R. H., 1958. J. Cell. Comp. Physiol., 52, 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, J. F., 1967. Curr. Topics Radiat. Res., 3, 305.Google Scholar
Hulse, E. V., and Mizon, L. G., 1967. Int. J. Radiat. Biol., 12, 515.Google Scholar
Hunt, E. L., Carroll, H. W., and Kimeldorf, D. J., 1966. Radiat. Res., 27, 511.Google Scholar
Mole, R. H., 1956. Br. J. Radiol., 29, 563.Google Scholar
Mole, R. H., 1965. A. Rev. Nucl. Sci., 15, 207.Google Scholar
Old, L. J., and Boyse, E. A., 1965. Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs Exp. Biol., 24, 1009.Google Scholar
Ord, M. G., and Stocken, L. A., 1968. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. B., 70, 117124.Google Scholar
Prehn, R. T., 1965. Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs Exp. Biol., 24, 1018.Google Scholar
Quastler, H., 1956. Radiat. Res., 4, 303.Google Scholar
Spriggs, A. I., Boddington, M. M., and Halley, W., 1967. Lancet, 1967/1, 210.Google Scholar
Sullivan, M. F., Hulse, E. V., and Mole, R. H., 1965. Br.J. Exp. Path., 46, 25.Google Scholar
Till, J. E., McCulloch, E. A., and Siminovitch, L., 1964. Proc. Natn. Acad. Sci., U.S.A., 51, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trowell, O. A., 1961. Int. J. Radiat. Biol., 4, 163.Google Scholar
Whitmore, G. F., and Gulyas, S., 1966. Science, N.Y., 151, 691.Google Scholar
Whitmore, G. F., Gulyas, S., and Botond, J., 1965. In Cellular Radiation Biology, 423. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.Google Scholar