Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumThe Effect of Low Dose Radiation on Immune Function
The paper I'll discuss in this post comes from the last issue of 2024 of one of my favorite scientific journals Environmental Science and Technology.
The article, which is fairly technical, is this one: Environmental Low-Dose Radiation Activates Th1 Immunity through the Mitochondria-STING Pathway Xiuxiu Yao, Wendi Huo, Yuchen Wang, Dongfang Xia, Yan Chen, Yuhua Tang, Huayong Tang, Wenjiang Yang, Yu Liu, Jingquan Xue, Qing Yuan, Xueyun Gao, and Kai Cao Environmental Science & Technology 2024 58 (52), 22907-22918.
As I'm way behind on my reading, I won't spend much time with it; confessing as well to having only some exposure to the finer details of molecular biology oriented immunology, but enough to consider myself marginally familiar. (I'm a proteomics guy, but basically an analytical proteomics guy concerned with structural molecular biology.)
The article conflicts with the LNT (linear no threshold) hypothesis that drives the radiation exposure regulations, the LNT being, questioned by some in the health physics community, most vociferously (to my knowledge) by Edward Calabrese.
The Health Physics Society put together a series of video lectures by Dr. Calabrese on the subject of the LNT here:
Anyway, from the introduction to the paper:
The immune system plays as one of the most important defense mechanisms against various environmental insultants, including radiation. (7,8) T lymphocytes are the major player in the adaptive immune system, which are divided into CD4+ and CD8+ T cells with their own subsets. Type 1 CD4+ helper T cells (Th1) and type 1 CD8+ cytotoxic T cells (Tc1) are the main immune responsers by producing cytokines that secrete inflammatory cytokines and cytolytic molecules to kill pathogen or malignant cells, while regulatory T cells (Treg) are the immunosuppressive subtype. (9,10) LDR has been shown to interact with the immune system, however, with contradictory findings. Although some studies have found that LDR may suppress the immune system, decrease the thymic function, increase the risk of certain diseases, (11−14) there are many more studies that have shown LDR may induce immune responses in disease models. (15−17) However, the effect of LDR on healthy individuals is still highly obscure, as well as detailed cell subtype of its action, and the underlying molecular mechanisms. To illustrate the unambiguous immunoregulatory effect of environmental LDR, which may also promote both clinical and nonclinical application of LDR, it is critical to obtain the detailed information regarding to the effect of LDR on different immune cell subsets.
Here, we first irradiated splenocytes, the immune cells from largest lymphatic organ, with LDR, and found that the percentage of Th1 cells was specifically upregulated. Mechanistically, we found that LDR induced mitochondrial damage and resulted in the activation of the stimulator of interferon genes (STING) pathway that elevated the expression of T-bet, the master transcriptional factor of Th1-cell differentiation. We also irradiated mice with whole body LDR and found a similar phenomenon. The percentage of differentiated Th1 cells were elevated after LDR. Furthermore, preventive LDR significantly suppressed tumor growth, with increased systemic and intratumoral antitumor immunity, further confirming the immunoregulatory role of LDR. Therefore, our study elaborated in detail on the facilitating effect of low-dose environmental radiation on the human immune system and its underlying mechanism and thus provides novel information for the handling and potential future application of LDR...
The authors work was with mice, and takes place some 80 years after the work which Dr. Calabrese so strongly criticizes, on which the LNT, and thus our regulatory environment, is based. (Dr. Calabrese contends that the original LNT work was a case of scientific fraud.)
Some graphics from the paper:
The caption:
The caption:
Figure 2. Effects of LDR on T-cell cytotoxicity. (a) Schematic for the coculture system of 4T1 tumor cells and LDR (200 mGy)-treated splenocytes followed by PMA + ionomycin treatment for the evaluation of cytotoxic function by either CCK-8 or confocal imaging. (b) CCK-8 test was conducted on 4T1 cells alone or 4T1 cells cocultured with splenocytes (Spc) with indicated treatments for 24 h. (c) Representative confocal picture of cocultured cells stained by Calcein AM and PI. White arrowhead pointed at PI positive 4T1 cells. (d) The percentage of PI positive 4T1 tumor cells was calculated. (e) The death index of 4T1 cells with indicated treatment is shown
The caption:
The caption:
...and so on...
The graphics in the paper shown as well as those not shown reflect support for a concept known as hormesis, a health benefit of exposure to low levels of radiation, in contrast to the suppositions of the LNT. Personally, I would not be surprised if hormesis turns out to be a true effect, although it is not by any means proven to be so, in this case it is. Life evolved on this planet in a radiation field much larger than the one we now experience, since potassium, an essential element in all living things generates low level radiation owing to the presence of 40K, a naturally occurring radioisotope with a half-life long enough (t1/2 = 1.248 billion years) to persist after the accretion of the Earth from what was clearly supernova(e) ejecta. If, to give one suggested figure, life appeared on Earth 3.7 billion years ago, 40K has experienced close to three half-lives of nuclear decay, and was about 7.8 times more radioactive than it is today. It is therefore unsurprising that live evolved the capability to exist, and indeed thrive, in a radiation field.
The paper concludes like this:
I do realize that many people have been trained to think that the results claimed here are counterintuitive, but science is not religious cant, nor is it immune from human biases outside of dogma. Fear of radiation, in my view, has led to vast environmental destruction from which it is increasingly a long shot that humanity may recover.
Have as pleasant a Sunday afternoon, in your shattering country.
Oneear
(305 posts)What about the Cancer Patients and the Microplastics in our Bodies? What does that do when heated?
marked50
(1,457 posts)Can you relate a layman version of the conclusions of this study.
Like : What type of low-dose radiation are we talking about?
What are the end effects to be concerned about?
Should we avoid something?
Thanks....
NNadir
(35,006 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 27, 2025, 08:44 AM - Edit history (1)
...human health.
It was conducted in mice, not higher species. That said, so was the study 80 years ago on which our radiation regulations are based.
The implication is that the conclusions draw 80 years ago were wrong. (Dr. Calabrese contends they were fraudulent.)
In this study the authors utilized gamma radiation from 137 Cs, a radioactive isotope of cesium that is commonly found in used nuclear fuel, where it is a fission product.
The main thing to be concerned about is the public perception of radiation that has been a millstone around the use of nuclear energy, thus driving the collapse of the planetary atmosphere.
We should avoid foolish interpretations of risk. These perceptions, which are absurd, are killing the planet. I hope this answers your questions. Thanks for your interest.