Sotiria Triantopoulou’s research while affiliated with National Centre of Scientific Research "Demokritos" and other places

The ozone layer in the Earth’s atmosphere filters solar radiation and limits the unwanted effects on humans. A depletion of this ozone shield would permit hazardous levels of UV solar radiation, especially in the UVB range, to bombard Earth’s surface, resulting in potentially significant effects on human health. The concern for these adverse effects intensifies if we consider that the UVB solar radiation is combined with secondary cosmic radiation (SCR) components, such as protons and muons, as well as terrestrial gamma rays. This research aims to delve into the intricate interplay between cosmic and solar radiation on earth at the cellular level, focusing on their synergistic effects on human cell biology. Through a multidisciplinary approach integrating radiobiology and physics, we aim to explore key aspects of biological responses, including cell viability, DNA damage, stress gene expression, and finally, genomic instability. To assess the impact of the combined exposure, normal i.e., non-malignant human cells (skin fibroblasts, keratinocytes, monocytes, and lymphocytes) were exposed to high-energy protons or gamma rays in combination with UVB. Cellular molecular and cytogenetic biomarkers of radiation exposure, such as DNA damage (γH2AΧ histone protein and dicentric chromosomes), as well as the expression pattern of various stress genes, were analyzed. In parallel, the MTS reduction and lactate dehydrogenase assays were used as indicators of cell viability, proliferation, and cytotoxicity. Results reveal remaining DNA damage for the co-exposed samples compared to samples exposed to only one type of radiation in all types of cells, accompanied by increased genomic instability and distinct stress gene expression patterns detected at 24–48 h post-exposure. Understanding the impact of combined radiation exposures is crucial for assessing the health risks posed to humans if the ozone layer is partially depleted, with structural and functional damages inflicted by combined cosmic and UVB exposure.

In previous RENEB interlaboratory comparisons based on the manual scoring of dicentric chromosomes, a tendency for systematic overestimation for doses > 2.5 Gy was found. However, these exercises included only very few doses in the high dose range, and they were heterogeneous in terms of radiation quality and evaluation mode, and comparable only to a limited extent. Here, this presumed deviation was explored by investigating three doses > 2.5 Gy. Blood samples were irradiated (2.56, 3.41 and 4.54 Gy) using a ⁶⁰Co source and sent to 14 member laboratories of the RENEB network, which performed the dicentric chromosome assay (manual and/or semi-automatic scoring) and reported dose estimates. Most participants provided estimates that agreed very well with the physical reference doses and all provided dose estimates were in the correct clinical category (> 2 Gy). The previously observed tendency for a systematic bias across all laboratories was not confirmed. However, tendencies for systematic underestimation were detected for dose estimations for reference doses given in terms of absorbed dose to blood and for some participants, a laboratory-specific trend of systematic under- or overestimation was observed. The importance of regularly performed quality checks for a broad dose range became obvious to avoid misinterpretation of results.

Background/Objectives: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) plays a vital role in cell proliferation and survival, with its overexpression linked to various malignancies, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are a key therapeutic strategy, acquired resistance and relapse remain challenges. This study aimed to synthesize and evaluate novel rhenium-based complexes incorporating EGFR TKIs to enhance anticancer efficacy, particularly in radiosensitization. Methods: We synthesized a rhenium tricarbonyl complex (Complex 2) and its 99mTc analog (Complex 2’) by incorporating triphenylphosphine instead of bromine as the monodentate ligand and PF6− as the counter-ion, resulting in a positively charged compound that forms cationic structures. Cytotoxicity and EGFR inhibition were evaluated in A431 cells overexpressing EGFR using MTT assays, Western blotting, and flow cytometry. Radiosensitization was tested through MTT and clonogenic assays. The 99mTc complex’s radiochemical yield, stability, and lipophilicity were also assessed. Results: Complex 2 exhibited significant cytotoxicity with an IC50 of 2.6 μM and EGFR phosphorylation inhibition with an IC50 of 130.6 nM. Both complex 1 and 2 induced G0/G1 cell cycle arrest, with Complex 2 causing apoptosis. Radiosensitization was observed at doses above 2 Gy. Complex 2’ demonstrated high stability and favorable lipophilicity (LogD7.4 3.2), showing 12% cellular uptake after 30 min. Conclusions: Complexes 2 and 2’ show promise as dual-function anticancer agents, offering EGFR inhibition, apoptosis induction, and radiosensitization. Their potential as radiopharmaceuticals warrants further in-depth investigation in preclinical models.

Radiotherapy (RT) is a major part of cancer treatment. The reported variability in patient response to this modality can interfere with the continuation of best-possible care, promote side effects, and lead to long-term morbidity. Tools to predict a patient’s response to radiation could be highly useful in improving therapeutic outcomes while minimizing unnecessary and toxic exposure to radiation. This study investigates the potential of using molecular biomarkers as predictors of radiosensitivity in clinical practice. We review relative studies researching the positive correlation between various molecular biomarkers and patient radiosensitivity, including DNA damage response and repair proteins, inflammation and apoptosis markers, cell cycle regulators, and other biological markers. The clinical perspectives and applicability of these biomarkers in the prediction of radiosensitivity are also critically discussed. Conclusively, we underline the dynamics of molecular biomarkers to improve the efficacy and safety of radiotherapy in clinical practice and highlight the need for further research in this field. Identification of the most prominent markers is crucial for the personalization of therapies entailing ionizing radiation.

In recent years, scientific understanding of the changes radiation makes to the various tissues of the body has vastly increased. Identification of biological markers of radiation exposure and response has become a wide field with an increasing interest across the radiation research community. This chapter introduces the concepts of individual radiosensitivity, radiosusceptibility, and radiodegeneration, which are the key factors to classify radiation responses. Biomarkers are then introduced, and their key characteristics as well as classification are explained, with a particular focus on those biomarkers which have been identified for use in epidemiological studies of radiation risk—as this is a crucial topic of current interest within radiation protection. Brief information on collection of samples is followed by a detailed presentation of predictive assays in use in different settings including clinical applications with responses assessed chiefly in tissue biopsy or blood samples. The sections toward the end of this chapter then discuss the evidence associated with the relationship between age and separately sex, and radiosensitivity, as well as some genetic syndromes associated with radiosensitivity. The final section of this chapter provides a brief summary of how our current knowledge can further support individual, personalized, uses of radiation, particularly in clinical settings.

This chapter describes situations where individuals may be potentially exposed to ionizing radiation in accidental, occupational, or public exposures excluding those from clinical radiotherapy. Each exposure type can have very specific characteristics ranging in radiation quality, dose, dose rate, length of exposures, and proportion of the body acute exposure. As such, some long-term health effects of low-dose exposures are described including effects on the embryo and fetus, heritable diseases, cataracts, and cardiovascular effects. Special focus on exposure to radon is included along with the health effects specific to this exposure situation. Accidental and malicious exposures can also include high-dose scenarios that can lead to the development of acute radiation syndrome (ARS). Details of ARS are described along with how it can be diagnosed. In some exposure scenarios, large numbers of individuals are exposed such that triage is required to quickly identify those needing medical intervention to mitigate ARS. Strategies for triage for treatment are described with respect to trauma, contamination, and exposure along with a discussion of suggested countermeasures for internal exposure and medical follow-up after exposure. In order to assist with determining the dose of radiation an individual has been exposed to, several biodosimetry techniques are described. The final section focuses on the radiation protection system including definitions of quantities commonly used and the limits of exposure.

Various exogeneous and endogenous factors constantly cause damages in the biomolecules within a cell. For example, per day, 10,000–100,000 molecular lesions occur in DNA per cell. The molecule modifications that are formed disturb the structure and function of the affected molecules. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the damages to biomolecules caused by radiation, the associated repair pathways, and the effect on the cellular function. Special interest lies on the damages induced to DNA, the carrier of the human genome, and the consequence to genomic integrity, cell death, and cell survival. Additionally, related effects regarding inflammation and immunity, epigenetic factors, and omics are discussed. The chapter concludes with an explanation of the molecular factors of cellular hyper-radiosensitivity and induced radiation resistance.

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.

In the case of a radiological or nuclear event, biological dosimetry can be an important tool to support clinical decision-making. During a nuclear event, individuals might be exposed to a mixed field of neutrons and photons. The composition of the field and the neutron energy spectrum influence the degree of damage to the chromosomes. During the transatlantic BALANCE project, an exposure similar to a Hiroshima-like device at a distance of 1.5 km from the epicenter was simulated and biological dosimetry based on dicentric chromosomes was performed to evaluate the participants ability to discover unknown doses and to test the influence of differences in neutron spectra. In a first step, calibration curves were established by irradiating blood samples with 5 doses in the range of 0 Gy to 4 Gy at two different facilities in Germany (PTB) and USA (CINF). The samples were sent to eight participating laboratories from the RENEB network and dicentric chromosomes were scored by each participant. Next, blood samples were irradiated with 4 blind doses in each of the two facilities and sent to the participants to provide dose estimates based on the established calibration curves. Manual and semi-automatic scoring of dicentric chromosomes were evaluated for their applicability to neutron exposures. Moreover, the biological effectiveness of the neutrons from the two irradiation facilities was compared. The calibration curves from samples irradiated at CINF showed a 1.4 times higher biological effectiveness compared to samples irradiated at PTB. For manual scoring of dicentric chromosomes, the doses of the test samples were mostly successfully resolved based on the calibration curves established during the project. For semi-automatic scoring, the dose estimation for the test samples was less successful. Doses >2 Gy in the calibration curves revealed non-linear associations between dose and dispersion index of the dicentric counts, especially for manual scoring. The differences in the biological effectiveness between the irradiation facilities suggested that the neutron energy spectrum can have a strong impact on the dicentric counts.

After large-scale radiation accidents where many individuals are suspected to be exposed to ionizing radiation, biological and physical retrospective dosimetry assays are important tools to aid clinical decision making by categorizing individuals into unexposed/minimally, moderately or highly exposed groups. Quality-controlled inter-laboratory comparisons of simulated accident scenarios are regularly performed in the frame of the European legal association RENEB (Running the European Network of Biological and Physical retrospective Dosimetry) to optimize international networking and emergency readiness in case of large-scale radiation events. In total 33 laboratories from 22 countries around the world participated in the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison 2021 for the dicentric chromosome assay. Blood was irradiated in vitro with X rays (240 kVp, 13 mA, ∼75 keV, 1 Gy/min) to simulate an acute, homogeneous whole-body exposure. Three blood samples (no. 1: 0 Gy, no. 2: 1.2 Gy, no. 3: 3.5 Gy) were sent to each participant and the task was to culture samples, to prepare slides and to assess radiation doses based on the observed dicentric yields from 50 manually or 150 semi-automatically scored metaphases (triage mode scoring). Approximately two-thirds of the participants applied calibration curves from irradiations with γ rays and about 1/3 from irradiations with X rays with varying energies. The categorization of the samples in clinically relevant groups corresponding to individuals that were unexposed/minimally (0-1 Gy), moderately (1-2 Gy) or highly exposed (>2 Gy) was successfully performed by all participants for sample no. 1 and no. 3 and by ≥74% for sample no. 2. However, while most participants estimated a dose of exactly 0 Gy for the sham-irradiated sample, the precise dose estimates of the samples irradiated with doses >0 Gy were systematically higher than the corresponding reference doses and showed a median deviation of 0.5 Gy (sample no. 2) and 0.95 Gy (sample no. 3) for manual scoring. By converting doses estimated based on γ-ray calibration curves to X-ray doses of a comparable mean photon energy as used in this exercise, the median deviation decreased to 0.27 Gy (sample no. 2) and 0.6 Gy (sample no. 3). The main aim of biological dosimetry in the case of a large-scale event is the categorization of individuals into clinically relevant groups, to aid clinical decision making. This task was successfully performed by all participants for the 0 Gy and 3.5 Gy samples and by 74% (manual scoring) and 80% (semi-automatic scoring) for the 1.2 Gy sample. Due to the accuracy of the dicentric chromosome assay and the high number of participating laboratories, a systematic shift of the dose estimates could be revealed. Differences in radiation quality (X ray vs. γ ray) between the test samples and the applied dose effect curves can partly explain the systematic shift. There might be several additional reasons for the observed bias (e.g., donor effects, transport, experimental conditions or the irradiation setup) and the analysis of these reasons provides great opportunities for future research. The participation of laboratories from countries around the world gave the opportunity to compare the results on an international level.