Search

For more than a century, ionizing radiation has been indispensable mainly in medicine and industry. Radiation research is a multidisciplinary field that investigates radiation effects. Radiation research was very active in the mid- to late 20th century, but has then faced challenges, during which time funding has fluctuated widely. Here we review historical changes in funding situations in the field of radiation research, particularly in Canada, European Union countries, Japan, South Korea, and the US. We also provide a brief overview of the current situations in education and training in this field. A better understanding of the biological consequences of radiation exposure is becoming more important with increasing public concerns on radiation risks and other radiation literacy. Continued funding for radiation research is needed, and education and training in this field are also important.

People are more often exposed to low as opposed to high doses of ionising radiation (IR). Knowledge on the health risks associated with exposures to ionising radiation above 100 mGy is quite well established, while lower dose risks are inferred from higher level exposure information (ICRP). The health risk assessments are mainly based on epidemiological data derived from the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, medical exposure studies and follow-up studies after nuclear accidents. For the estimation of long-term stochastic radiation health effects (such as cancer) and radiation protection purposes, a linear non-threshold (LNT) model is applied. However, the general validity of the LNT hypothesis for extrapolations from effects of high to low doses (<100 mGy) and low dose-rates (<6 mGy/h) has been questioned as epidemiological studies are statistically limited at low doses and unable to evaluate low dose and low dose-rate health risks (UNSCEAR). Thus, uncertainties on health risks need to be clarified with the help of mechanistic studies. The European Network of Excellence DoReMi (2010-2016) was designed to address some of the existing uncertainties and to identify research lines that are likely to be most informative for low dose risk assessment. The present review reports the results obtained from studies addressing the induction of cancer and non-cancer effects by low dose IR as well as on individual radiation sensitivity. It is shown that low dose and low dose-rate effects are the result of complex network responses including genetic, epigenetic, metabolic and immunological regulation. Evidence is provided for the existence of nonlinear biological responses in the low and medium dose range as well as effects other than the classical DNA damage. Such effects may have a bearing on the quantitative and qualitative judgements on health effects induced by low dose radiations., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Purpose: This paper provides an update and summary on the organization of European research in the field of low dose risk and radiation protection. To address declining resources and competence in radiation protection and related research across European countries, a High Level and Expert Group (HLEG) was established in 2007. The HLEG identified key policy and scientific questions to be addressed through a strategic research agenda for low dose radiation risk. This initiated the establishment of a European Research Platform, called MELODI (Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Research Initiative). Dr Bill Morgan closely followed the European low dose programme and chaired the international Advisory Boards of DoReMi Network of Excellence and the MELODI platform., Conclusion: The MELODI research platform is dedicated to low dose ionizing radiation risk. In 2010, MELODI was founded as a registered association with 15 members. As of September 2016, the association´s membership increased to 46. A major activity of MELODI is the establishment and updating of a long-term Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) for research on low dose risk in Europe. The SRA is intended to guide the priorities for national and European research programmes and the preparation of competitive calls at the European level. A key priority for radiation protection research is to improve health risk estimates for exposures corresponding to the dose limits for occupational exposures and to reference levels for the exposure of the population in emergency situations.

In 2009, the European High Level and Expert Group identified key policy and scientific questions to be addressed through a strategic research agenda for low-dose radiation risk. This initiated the establishment of a European Research Platform, called MELODI (Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Research Initiative). In 2010, the DoReMi Network of Excellence was launched in the Euratom 7th Framework Programme. DoReMi has acted as an operational tool for the sustained development of the MELODI platform during its early years. A long-term Strategic Research Agenda for European low-dose radiation risk research has been developed by MELODI. Strategic planning of DoReMi research activities is carried out in close collaboration with MELODI. The research priorities for DoReMi are designed to focus on objectives that are achievable within the 6-y lifetime of the project and that are in areas where stimulus and support can help progress towards the longer-term strategic objectives., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Epidemiological studies have indicated that exposure of the heart to doses of ionizing radiation as low as 0.5 Gy increases the risk of cardiac morbidity and mortality with a latency period of decades. The damaging effects of radiation to myocardial and endothelial structures and functions have been confirmed radiobiologically at high dose, but much less are known at low dose. Integration of radiation biology and epidemiology data is a recommended approach to improve the radiation risk assessment process. The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework offers a comprehensive tool to compile and translate mechanistic information into pathological endpoints which may be relevant for risk assessment at the different levels of a biological system. Omics technologies enable the generation of large volumes of biological data at various levels of complexity, from molecular pathways to functional organisms. Given the quality and quantity of available data across levels of biology, omics data can be attractive sources of information for use within the AOP framework. It is anticipated that radiation omics studies could improve our understanding of the molecular mechanisms behind the adverse effects of radiation on the cardiovascular system. In this review, we explored the available omics studies on radiation-induced cardiovascular disease (CVD) and their applicability to the proposed AOP for CVD. The results of 80 omics studies published on radiation-induced CVD over the past 20 years have been discussed in the context of the AOP of CVD proposed by Chauhan et al. Most of the available omics data on radiation-induced CVD are from proteomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics, whereas few datasets were available from epigenomics and multi-omics. The omics data presented here show great promise in providing information for several key events (KEs) of the proposed AOP of CVD, particularly oxidative stress, alterations of energy metabolism, extracellular matrix (ECM), and vascular remodeling. The omics data presented here shows promise to inform the various levels of the proposed AOP of CVD. However, the data highlight the urgent need of designing omics studies to address the knowledge gap concerning different radiation scenarios, time after exposure, and experimental models. This review presents the evidence to build a qualitative omics-informed AOP and provides views on the potential benefits and challenges in using omics data to assess risk-related outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This special issue of the International Journal of Radiation Biology entitled "Adverse Outcome Pathways in Radiation Protection" is inspired by growing global interest in approaches for integrating information from radiation biology and epidemiology to improve scientific understanding of low dose radiation health risk assessment. Also explored is benchmark dose modeling as a means to identify a point of departure (POD) for adverse phenotypic effects using transcriptional dose-response data (Chauhan et al. [8]). However, before this goal is reached, some important questions need to be addressed as to how different types, doses and dose rates of radiation exposure can accurately inform AOP development and how AOPs can reflect the latency of adverse health outcomes in a simplified form. [Extracted from the article]

Abstract: Non-DNA targeted effects of ionising radiation, which include genomic instability, and a variety of bystander effects including abscopal effects and bystander mediated adaptive response, have raised concerns about the magnitude of low-dose radiation risk. Genomic instability, bystander effects and adaptive responses are powered by fundamental, but not clearly understood systems that maintain tissue homeostasis. Despite excellent research in this field by various groups, there are still gaps in our understanding of the likely mechanisms associated with non-DNA targeted effects, particularly with respect to systemic (human health) consequences at low and intermediate doses of ionising radiation. Other outstanding questions include links between the different non-targeted responses and the variations in response observed between individuals and cell lines, possibly a function of genetic background. Furthermore, it is still not known what the initial target and early interactions in cells are that give rise to non-targeted responses in neighbouring or descendant cells. This paper provides a commentary on the current state of the field as a result of the non-targeted effects of ionising radiation (NOTE) Integrated Project funded by the European Union. Here we critically examine the evidence for non-targeted effects, discuss apparently contradictory results and consider implications for low-dose radiation health effects. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]