Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Aug;77(16):3129-3159.
doi: 10.1007/s00018-020-03479-x. Epub 2020 Feb 18.

Targets for protection and mitigation of radiation injury

Affiliations
Review

Targets for protection and mitigation of radiation injury

Ehsan Khodamoradi et al. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2020 Aug.

Abstract

Protection of normal tissues against toxic effects of ionizing radiation is a critical issue in clinical and environmental radiobiology. Investigations in recent decades have suggested potential targets that are involved in the protection against radiation-induced damages to normal tissues and can be proposed for mitigation of radiation injury. Emerging evidences have been shown to be in contrast to an old dogma in radiation biology; a major amount of reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and cell toxicity occur during some hours to years after exposure to ionizing radiation. This can be attributed to upregulation of inflammatory and fibrosis mediators, epigenetic changes and disruption of the normal metabolism of oxygen. In the current review, we explain the cellular and molecular changes following exposure of normal tissues to ionizing radiation. Furthermore, we review potential targets that can be proposed for protection and mitigation of radiation toxicity.

Keywords: Acute radiation syndrome (ARS); Fibrosis; Inflammation; Mitigation; Mitochondria; Normal tissue injury; Pneumonitis; ROS; Radiation; Redox.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Apoptosis pathways after exposure to ionizing radiation. Exogenous and endogenous ROS trigger upregulation of apoptosis receptors which cause Bax upregulation and downregulation of Bcl-2. DNA damage and p53 also have key roles in the initiation of apoptosis signaling pathways. Apoptosis clearance by macrophages leads to their activation and is associated with NO generation. NO can interact with Ogg1, a key player in BER pathway, thus suppresses DDR. Neutralization of NO can boost DDR, thus reduces apoptosis. Furthermore, activation of TLR4&5 can increase the expression of NF-κB, leading to inhibition of Bax and upregulation of Bcl-2. P38 has a negative role and its suppression can preserve cell viability
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Radiation-induced senescence triggers the activity of pro-oxidant enzymes and fibrosis
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Inflammatory responses following exposure to ionizing radiation. Necrosis, necroptosis or autophagy can induce inflammatory responses following the release of DAMPs. NF-κB is a central regulator of inflammatory responses via triggering the release of cytokines and upregulation of COX-2 and iNOS. NF-κB also induces the development of inflammasome. Increased levels of inflammatory cytokines, iNOS and COX-2 amplify oxidative stress and DNA damage, which lead to continuous expression of NF-κB. The positive feedback between inflammatory cytokines, oxidative stress and transcription factors like NF-κB can cause chronic inflammation many years after exposure to radiation. Disruption of this crosstalk can mitigate radiation injury
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Mechanisms of radiation-induced redox metabolism and its role in the progression of radiation-induced normal tissue injury
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Suitable timelines for the mitigation of radiation injury in different organs. Each target may need a specific time in each organ. Information for some targets such as COX-2 require further studies. Furthermore, each antioxidant or anti-inflammatory agent may lead to different results, maybe because of their effects on other mechanisms. This timing is based on information adopted from animal studies

References

    1. Lindegaard JC, Grau C. Has the outlook improved for amifostine as a clinical radioprotector? Radiother Oncol. 2000;57(2):113–118. - PubMed
    1. Wasserman T. Radioprotective effects of amifostine. Semin Oncol. 1999;20:20. - PubMed
    1. Abt G, Vaghef H, Gebhart E, Dahlgren CV, Hellman B. The role of N-acetylcysteine as a putative radioprotective agent on X-ray-induced DNA damage as evaluated by alkaline single-cell gel electrophoresis. Mutation Res DNA Rep. 1997;384(1):55–64. - PubMed
    1. Rades D, Fehlauer F, Bajrovic A, Mahlmann B, Richter E, Alberti W. Serious adverse effects of amifostine during radiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients. Radiother Oncol. 2004;70(3):261–264. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2003.10.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brizel DM, Wasserman TH, Henke M, Strnad V, Rudat V, Monnier A, et al. Phase III randomized trial of amifostine as a radioprotector in head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(19):3339–3345. - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources