Geant4-DNA simulation of DNA damage caused by direct and indirect radiation effects and comparison with biological data.
1 Institut de Radioprotection et Sûreté nucléaire (IRSN), BP-17, 92262 - Fontenay-aux-Roses, France ;
2 Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), D-38116 Braunschweig, Germany
a Corresponding author: Carmen.firstname.lastname@example.org
Published online: 25 September 2017
In this work we present results obtained in the frame of the BioQuaRT project. The objective of the study was the correlation between the number of radiation-induced double strand breaks (DSB) of the DNA molecule and the probability of detecting nuclear foci after targeted microbeam irradiation of cells with protons and alpha particles of different LET. The former were obtained by simulation with new methods integrated into Geant4-DNA that permit calculating the number of DSB in a DNA target model induced by direct and indirect radiation effects. A particular focus was laid in this work on evaluating the influence of different criteria applied to the simulated results for predicting the formation of a direct SSB. Indeed, these criteria have an important impact on the predicted number of DSB per particle track and its dependence with LET. Among the criteria tested in this work, the case that a direct radiation interaction leads to a strand break if the cumulative energy deposited in the backbone part of one nucleotide exceeds a threshold of 17.5 eV leads to the best agreement with the relative LET dependence of number of radiation induced foci. Further calculations and experimental data are nevertheless needed in order to fix the simulation parameters and to help interpreting the biological experimental data observed by immunofluorescence in terms of the DSB complexity.
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2017
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.