Evaluation of DNA versus collagen perception in scientific articles examining cancer and radiation therapy: implication for collagen based approaches

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 22 - 28, 04.01.2023

Şule Karaman Özge Karaçay Yavuz Dizdar

https://doi.org/10.18621/eurj.1053651

Cited By: 1

Öz

Objectives: Although radiation therapy has been used for more than a hundred years, its definitive mechanism of action is not known. Many studies indicate that radiation induces free radicals which damage DNA. However, irradiation should also affect the collagen connective tissue matrix. This database analysis aims to determine the extent of DNA versus collagen perception in scientific papers.

Methods: Journals indexed in PubMed were searched on March 3, 2022, using the medical keywords "cancer", "radiation therapy", "radiation therapy AND damage," radiation therapy AND mechanism AND damage, "radiation therapy AND clinical". The number of items found for each search was proportioned in terms of “DNA versus collagen” and the ratio was accepted as the perception shift coefficient.

Results: Results were tested with the p-value analysis to calculate the difference between the two proportions in both search items. Based on the main rule under the assumption that “all cells have DNA and all cells live in the collagen matrix”. In the p1-p2 analysis of the data, a significant (p < 0.001) difference was obtained for all dichotomy scans.

Conclusions: This data analysis supports the argument that both cancer and radiation therapy perception is DNA-based rather than collagen, since the synthesis and degradation process of very slow; it is not possible to observe it in short-term studies. The effects of irradiation should be further analyzed in this manner for purpose of collagen matrix interaction.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Radiation therapy, DNA, collagen, fuzzification

Kaynakça

• 1. Bernier J, Hall EJ, Giaccia A. Radiation oncology: a century of achievements. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:737-47.
• 2. Lars R, Holsti LR. Development of clinical radiotherapy since 1896. Acta Oncol 1995;34:995-1003.
• 3. Moulder JE, Seymour C. Radiation fractionation: the search for isoeffect relationships and mechanisms. Int J Radiat Biol 2018;94:743-51.
• 4. Reid PA, Wilson P, Li Y, Marcu LG, Bezak E. Current understanding of cancer stem cells: review of their radiobiology and role in head and neck cancers. Head Neck 2017;39:1920-32.
• 5. Mothersill C, Seymour C. Targets, pools, shoulders, and communication – a reflection on the evolution of low-dose radiobiology. Int J Radiat Biol 2019;95: 851-60.
• 6. Nikjoo H, Emfietzoglou D, Liamsuwan T, Taleei R, Liljequist D, Uehara S. Radiation track, DNA damage and response - a review. Rep Prog Phys 2016;79:116601.
• 7. Ricard-Blum S. The collagen family. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2011;3:a004978.
• 8. Gordon MK, Hahn RA. Collagens. Cell Tissue Res 2010;339:247-57.
• 9. Gelse K, Pöschl E, Aigner T. Collagens - structure, function, and biosynthesis. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2003;55:1531-46.
• 10. Ghazavi SN, Liao TW. Medical data mining by fuzzy modeling with selected features. Artif Intell Med 2008;43:195-206.
• 11. Brooks B, Kilgour FG. A comparison of Library of Congress subject headings and medical subject headings. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1964;52:414-9.
• 12. Lau AMS. ‘Formative good, summative bad?’ - A review of the dichotomy in assessment literature. J Furth High Edu 2016;40:509-25.
• 13. Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ 2006;332: 1080.
• 14. Asuero AG, Sayago A, González AG. The correlation coefficient: An overview. Crit Rev Anal Chem 2006;36:41-59.
• 15. Gibbons JD, Pratt JW. P-values: interpretation and methodology. Am Stat 1975;29:20-5.
• 16. Cohen. A power prime. Psychol Bull 1992;112:155-9.
• 17. Yang H, Lee HJ. Research trend visualization by MeSH terms from PubMed. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15:1113.
• 18. Baumann N. How to use the medical subject headings (MeSH). Int J Clin Pract 2016;70:171-4.
• 19. Rosalie David A, Zimmerman MR. Cancer: an old disease, a new disease or something in between? Nat Rev Cancer 2010;10:728-33.
• 20. Maddams J, Utley M, Møller H. Projections of cancer prevalence in the United Kingdom, 2010-2040. Br J Cancer 2012;107:1195-202.
• 21. Smith BD, Smith GL, Hurria A, Hortobagyi GN, Buchholz TA. Future of cancer incidence in the United States: burdens upon an aging, changing nation. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2758-65.
• 22. D'Souza ND, Murthy NS, Aras RY. Projection of burden of cancer mortality for India, 2011-2026. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013;14:4379-86.
• 23. Jeggo P, Pearl L, Carr A. DNA repair, genome stability and cancer: a historical perspective. Nat Rev Cancer 2016;16:35-42.
• 24. Basu AK. DNA damage, mutagenesis and cancer. Int J Mol Sci 2018;19:970.
• 25. Vermeulen K, Van Bockstaele DR, Berneman ZN. The cell cycle: a review of regulation, deregulation and therapeutic targets in cancer. Cell Prolif 2003;36:131-49.
• 26. Bowes JH, Moss JA. The effect of gamma radiation on collagen. Radiat Res 1962;16:211-23.
• 27. Bailey AJ, Tromans WJ. Effects of ionizing radiation on the ultrastructure of collagen fibrils. Radiat Res 1964;23:145-55.
• 28. Straub JM, New J, Hamilton CD, Lominska C, Shnayder S, Thomas SM. Radiation-induced fibrosis: mechanisms and implications for therapy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2015;141:1985-94.
• 29. Kochueva M, Dudenkova V, Kuznetsov S, Varlamova A, Sergeeva E, Kiseleva E, et al. Quantitative assessment of radiation-induced changes of bladder and rectum collagen structure using optical methods. J Biomed Opt 2018;23:1-8.
• 30. Maslennikova A, Kochueva M, Ignatieva N, Vitkin A, Zakharkina O, Kamensky V, Sergeeva E, et al. Effects of gamma irradiation on collagen damage and remodeling. Int J Radiat Biol 2015;91:240-7.
• 31. Henk JM, Whitelocke RA, Warrington AP, Bessell EM. Radiation dose to the lens and cataract formation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993;25:815-20.