The RENEB operational basis: complement of established biodosimetric assays

Figures & data

Table 1. General characteristics of the biodosimetric assays used in RENEB. Sensitivity is given for low LET radiation. See text for explanation of assay acronyms.

	Time span after exposure during which the assay can yield usable results				Exposure scenario that can be detected by each method alone
Assay	Days	Weeks	Months	Years	Acute	Pro-tracted	Partial body	Specific forionising radiation	Sensitivity of the assay(dose range in Gy)
DIC	√	√	√		√	√	√	√	0.1–5
FISH	√	√	√	√	√	√			0.3–5
MN	√	√	√		√	√	√		0.3–5
PCC	√				√		√	√	0.3–>10
gH2AX	√				√		√		0.2–5
EPR	√	√	√	√	√	√		√	1–>10
OSL	√	√			√	√		√	0.01–>10

Table 2. Biodosimetric assays established in the RENEB partner laboratories (as of 2015) and used in the intercomparisons. See text for explanation of assay acronyms and Kulka et al. (2016) in this issue for the explanation of laboratory acronyms.

	Biodosimetric assay
Partner and country	DIC	FISH	MN	PCC	gH2AX	EPR	OSL
BFS, Germany	X	X	X		X
CEA, France	X
ENEA, Italy	X		X
HMGU, Germany						X	X
PHE, UK	X	X	X		X
ICHTJ, Poland	X	X	X	X	X
INSP, Romania	X		X
IRSN, France	X	X				X
ISS, Italy							X
ITN, Portugal	X		X		X
LAFE, Spain	X
NCRRP, Bulgaria	X	X	X	X	X
NCSR D, Greece	X			X
NRIRR, Hungary	X		X
NRPA, Norway
SERMAS, Spain	X	X			X
SU, Sweden	X		X
UAB, Spain	X	X		X
UGent, Belgium			X		X
UNITUS, Italy	X
UULM, Germany	X	X	X
Total	17	8	11	4	7	2	2

Table 3. Summary of work carried out during the first intercomparison. See text for explanation of assay acronyms.

Biodosimetric tool	Content of the intercomparison
DIC	Part A: Telescoring: manual scoring of DIC from images provided by BfS. Two galleries of images were prepared from cells irradiated with 1.3 and 3.51 Gy. 50 images per gallery were scored by each laboratory. Reports included DIC frequencies and doses estimated based on own calibration curve. See Romm et al. (2016) for details. Part B: Blood from one donor was irradiated by BfS and sent to laboratories. Doses were 0, 0.94, 3.27 and 4.75 Gy mixed 1:1 with control blood (partial body exposure simulation). Reports included DIC frequencies and doses estimated based on own calibration curve. Only manual scoring. 50 cells scored per dose by each laboratory. See Oestreicher et al. (2016) for details.
FISH	Blood irradiated by UAB and sent to laboratories. The dose was 2 Gy. Laboratories used their own FISH cocktails and calculated genomic translocation frequencies. Reports included genomic frequencies of total translocations and doses estimated based on own calibration curves (in some cases calibration curves for DIC were used). See Barquinero et al. (2016) for details.
MN	Blood was irradiated by BfS and sent to laboratories. Doses were 0, 0.94, 3.27 and 4.75 Gy mixed 1:1 with control blood (partial body exposure simulation). Reports included MN frequencies and doses estimated based on own calibration curve. Some laboratories used manual scoring, other fully automatic or semi-automatic. 500 cells scored per dose. See Depuydt et al. (2016) for details.
PCC	Part A: Scoring of PCC from images provided by LUMC. 10 images were scored per dose of 0, 1, 2, 4 and 6 Gy to set up calibration curves. Part B: Blood irradiated at NCSRD with 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Gy, PCC slides prepared and sent to laboratories for analysis. 100 cells per point were analyzed. Part C: Blood irradiated at NCSRD with 2 and 4 Gy, mixed 1:1 with control blood. PCC slides prepared and sent to laboratories for PCC for analysis. 100 cells per point were analyzed.
gH2AX	Part A: Telescoring. Blood irradiated by PHE with 0, 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 Gy and fixed for gH2AX focus scoring after 4 or 24 h. Images sent to laboratories who scored them manually or automatically. Part B: Cell scoring. Isolated lymphocyte samples irradiated by PHE with 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 Gy incubated for 4 or 24 h and sent to laboratories who scored foci manually or automatically. Laboratories with existing calibration curves scored only 2 and 4 Gy samples. See Barnard et al. (2015) for details.
EPR	Part A: Uniform samples. Samples of bulk glass from 3 smartphones of the same model were irradiated by IRSN with 0.8, 2, 4 and 10 Gy for the calibration curve and with 0.9, 1.3 and 3.3 Gy for the blind test. Samples sent to laboratories, including selected EURADOS members. Part B: non-uniform samples. Glass from 9 smartphones of the same model were irradiated separately with by IRSN with 0.8, 2, 4 and 10 Gy for the calibration curve and with 0.9, 1.3 and 3.3 Gy for the blind test. Samples sent to laboratories, including selected EURADOS members. See Trompier et al. (2016) for details.
OSL	Smartphones of the same model were irradiated by IRSN with 0.3, 1.7 and 3.3 Gy and sent to laboratories, including selected EURADOS members. Analysis of OSL signals in resistors in ‘triage mode’ and ‘full mode’. See Trompier et al. (2016) for details.

Table 4. Summary of work carried out during the second intercomparison. See text for explanation of assay acronyms.

Biodosimetric tool	Content of the intercomparison
DIC	Blood irradiated by BfS and sent to laboratories. Doses were 0.85 and 2.7 Gy. Reports included DIC frequencies and doses estimated based on own calibration curve. Manual scoring and automated scoring. 200 cells scored per dose, whereby 50 cells were scored per one of four parallel slides for comparison of interslide variability. See Oestreicher et al. (2016) for details.
FISH	Blood irradiated by BfS and sent to laboratories. Doses were 0.85 and 2.7 Gy. Laboratories used their own FISH cocktails and calculated genomic translocation frequencies. Reports included genomic frequencies of total translocations and doses estimated based on own calibration curves (in some cases calibration curves for DIC were used). See Barquinero et al. (2016) for details.
MN	Blood irradiated by BfS and sent to laboratories. Doses were 0.85 and 2.7 Gy. Reports included MN frequencies and doses estimated based on own calibration curve. Manual scoring and automated scoring was carried out. Manual scoring: 2000 cells scored per dose (500 slides per parallel slide from two blood culture). Automated scoring: 4000 cells scored per dose (1000 slides per parallel slide from two blood culture). See Depuydt et al. (2016) for details.
PCC	Part A: Blood irradiated by BfS and sent to laboratories. Doses: 0.85 and 2.7 Gy. 40 cells were scored per dose. Part B: Two galleries of PCC images were prepared by NCSRD and distributed among five additional RENEB participants who did not participate in part A. Also, a calibration curve was distributed and doses estimates based on this calibration curve were reported. See Terzoudi et al. (2016) for details.
gH2AX	Whole blood was irradiated by PHE with 0.5 and 2.5 Gy, incubated for 4 or 24 h and sent to laboratories who scored them manually or automatically. In parallel to whole blood samples lymphocytes were isolated and shipped together with whole blood. See Moquet et al. (2016) for details.
EPR	A new analysis method of EPR spectra was tested. The method overcomes the problem of confounding influence of sun light on the irradiated glass samples. Spectra generated during the first intercomparison were re-analyzed by the two RENEB partners IRSN and ISS without participation of EURADOS.
OSL	OSL was tested in a realistic accident exercise that was carried out within the FP7 CATO project. Participants received smartphone components exposed to various doses of radiation. Dose estimates were carried out similarly as during intercomparison 1.

Figure 1. Performance of RENEB laboratories during the two intercomparisons. Values refer to the relative number of doses correctly estimated by a laboratory. Results from all assays and dose-points were pooled. EPR and OSL analyses are excluded. ‘All’ refers to percentage of all 19 laboratories that reached the value of 100.

Kulka U, Abend M, Ainsbury E, Badie C, Barquinero JF, Barrios L, Beinke C, Bortolin E, Cucu A, De Amicis A, et al. 2016. RENEB – Running the European Network of biological dosimetry and physical retrospective dosimetry. Int J Rad Biol, in this issue. Doi: 10.1080/09553002.2016.1230239.

 Google Scholar

Romm H, Ainsbury EA, Barquinero JF, Barrios L, Beinke C, Cucu A, Domene MM, Filippi S, Monteiro Gil O, et al. 2016. Web based scoring, a new method of validation and harmonization of scoring criteria within RENEB. Int J Rad Biol. 92, in this issue. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2016.1206228.

 Google Scholar

Oestreicher U, Samaga D, Ainsbury E, Antunes AC, Baeyens A, Barrios L, Beinke C, Beukes P, Blakely WF, Cucu A, et al. 2016. RENEB intercomparisons analysing dicentric chromosomes (Dicentric Assay). Int J Rad Biol. 92, in this issue.

 Google Scholar

Barquinero JF, Beinke C, Borràs M, Buraczewska I, Darroudi F, Gregoire E, Hristova R, Kulka U, Lindholm C, Moreno M, et al. 2016. RENEB biodosimetry intercomparison analyzing translocations by FISH. Int J Rad Biol, in this issue. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2016.1222092.

 Google Scholar

Depuydt J, Baeyens A, Barnard S, Beinke C, Benedek A, Beukes P, Buraczewska I, Darroudi F, De Sanctis S, Dominguez I, et al. 2016. RENEB Intercomparisons analyzing micronuclei (MN assay). Int J Radiat Biol. 92, in this issue. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2016.1206231.

 Google Scholar

Barnard S, Ainsbury EA, Al-hafidh J, Hadjidekova V, Hristova R, Lindholm C, Monteiro Gil O, Moquet J, Moreno M, Rößler U, et al. 2015. The first gamma-H2AX biodosimetry intercomparison exercise of the developing European biodosimetry network RENEB. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 164:265–70.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Trompier F, Burbidge C, Bassinet C, Baumann M, Bortolin F, De Angelis C, Eakins J, Della MS, Fattibene P, Quattrrini MC, Tanner R, Wieser A, Woda C. 2016. Overview of physical dosimetry methods for triage application integrated in the new European network RENEB. Int J Rad Biol, in this issue. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2016.1221545.

 Google Scholar

Terzoudi G, Pantelias G, Darroudi F, Barszczewska K, Buraczewska I, Depuydt J, Georgieva D, Hadjidekova V, Hatzi VI, et al. 2016. RENEB intercomparisons analyzing prematurely condensed chromosomes (PCC assay). Int J Rad Biol. 92, in this issue. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2016.1234725.

 Google Scholar

Moquet J, Barnard S, Staynova A, Lindholm C, Monteiro Gil O, Martins V, Rößler U, Vral A, Vandevoorde C, Wojewódzka M, Rothkamm K. 2016. The second gamma-H2AX assay inter-comparison exercise carried out in the framework of the European biodoeimstry network (RENEB). Int J Rad Biol, in this issue. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2016.1207822.

 Google Scholar