Effects of carbon dioxide purities on mitotic index in lymphocyte culture and metaphase chromosome quality

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

SOFIATI PURNAMI
INDRI PERMATA WIBISARI
VIRIA AGESTI SUVIFAN
SITI NURHAYATI
DWI RAMADHANI

Abstract

Abstract. Purnami S, Wibisari IP, Suvifan VA, Nurhayati S, Ramadhani D. 2021. Effects of carbon dioxide purities on mitotic index in lymphocyte culture and metaphase chromosome quality. Nusantara Bioscience 13: 171-176. The metaphase chromosome spread quality is necessary for a faster individual dose prediction following radiological accidents using dicentric chromosome assay. It is well known that the low-quality metaphase chromosome spreads can lead to false positives of dicentric chromosome identification. Thus, evaluation of the main variable that influences the preparation of high-quality metaphase chromosome spreads is important to perform. Until now, no studies have assessed the effects of CO2 purities on metaphase chromosome spread quality. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) purities on lymphocyte proliferation, and the quality of metaphase chromosome spreads to improve the chromosome aberration assay for cytogenetic biodosimetry purposes. Whole blood samples from three different subjects were cultured and incubated for 48 hours with two different grades of CO2 (high purity and food grades) and without CO2. The mitotic index (MI) from each subject was assessed, and the quality of metaphase chromosome spreads was evaluated by comparing the lengths of chromosomes 1, 2, and 21. Statistical analysis revealed that the difference between manual and automatic MI under three different conditions of CO2 purity was not statistically significant (p = 0.162; p = 0.901). Comparative analysis of the lengths of chromosomes 1, 2, and 21 from 145 metaphases also showed a difference that was not statistically significant (p = 0.745; p = 0.915; p = 0.399). Overall, our findings suggest that CO2 purities do not impair lymphocyte proliferation or metaphase quality. Further investigation should include other technical improvements such as drop-slide optimization.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

References
Deng W, Tsao SW, Lucas JN, Leung CS, Cheung ALM. 2003. A New Method for Improving Metaphase Chromosome Spreading. Cytometry Part A. 51(1): 46–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.10004.
Gruel G, Grégoire E, Lecas S, Martin C, Roch-Lefevre S, Vaurijoux A, Voisin P, Voisin P and Barquinero JF. 2013. Biological Dosimetry by Automated Dicentric Scoring in a Simulated Emergency. Radiation Research. 179(5): 557–569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1667/rr3196.1.
Han L, Gao Y, Wang P and Lyu Y. 2020. Cytogenetic biodosimetry for radiation accidents in China. Radiation Medicine and Protection. 1(3): 133–139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmp.2020.09.001.
Herate C, Sabatier L. 2020. Retrospective biodosimetry techniques: Focus on cytogenetics assays for individuals exposed to ionizing radiation. Mutation Research - Reviews in Mutation Research. 783: 108287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.108287.
Howe B, Umrigar A, Tsien F, 2014. Chromosome preparation from cultured cells. Journal of Visualized Experiments. (83): 3–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3791/50203.
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, 2011. Cytogenetic Dosimetry: Applications in Preparedness for and Response to Radiation Emergencies. Vienna: INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY.
Kato TA. 2019. Human Lymphocyte Metaphase Chromosome Preparation for Radiation-Induced Chromosome Aberration Analysis. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.). 1984: 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9432-8_1.
Keagle MB, Gersen SL. 2013. Basic Cytogenetics Laboratory Procedures. In: Gersen, S.L. and Keagle, M.B. (eds.) The Principles of Clinical Cytogenetics. New York, NY: Springer New York. pp. 53–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1688-4_4.
Koyani PR and Saiyad SS, 2011. Study of effect of colchicine exposure on length of chromosome during mitosis. Journal of the Anatomical Society of India. 60(2): 177–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2778(11)80020-1.
Kulka U, Wojcik A, Di Giorgio M, Wilkins R, Suto Y, Jang S, Quing-Jie L, Jiaxiang L, Ainsbury E, Woda C, Roy L, Li C, Lloyd D, Carr Z. 2018. Biodosimetry and biodosimetry networks for managing radiation emergency. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 182(1): 128–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/RPD/NCY137.
Li Y, Knoll JH, Wilkins RC, Flegal FN, Rogan PK. 2016. Automated discrimination of dicentric and monocentric chromosomes by machine learning-based image processing. Microscopy Research and Technique. 79(5): 393–402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.22642.
Mayakannan K, Sureka CS, Venkatesh R, Sathish Kumar R and Jeevanram RK. 2018. Construction of dose response curves up to 6?Gy for Micronucleus and Dicentric Chromosome Aberration Assay with 6?MV X-ray Beam. Radiation Measurements. 115: 60–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2018.05.012.
Pujol-Canadell M, Perrier JR, Cunha L, Shuryak I, Harken A, Garty G and Brenner DJ. 2020. Cytogenetically-based biodosimetry after high doses of radiation. PLoS ONE. 15(4): 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228350.
Romm H, Ainsbury E, Barnard S, Barrios L, Barquinero JF, Beinke C, Deperas M, Gregoire E, Koivistoinen A, Lindholm C, Moquet J, Oestreicher U, Puig R, Rothkamm K, Sommer S, Thierens H, Vandersickel V, Vral A and Wojcik A. 2013. Automatic scoring of dicentric chromosomes as a tool in large scale radiation accidents. Mutation Research - Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis. 756(1–2): 174–183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2013.05.013.
Wilkins RC, Romm H, Oestreicher U, Marro L, Yoshida MA, Suto Y and Prasannae PG. 2011. Biological Dosimetry by the Triage Dicentric Chromosome Assay – Further validation of International Networking. Radiation Measurements. 46(9): 923–928. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2011.03.012.Biological.
Yao Q, Gao J, Chen F and Li W. 2020. Development and application of an optimized drop-slide technique for metaphase chromosome spreads in maize. Biotechnic and Histochemistry. 95(4): 276–284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10520295.2019.1686167.