Skip to main content
Genome Research logoLink to Genome Research
letter
. 2003 Sep;13(9):2092–2100. doi: 10.1101/gr.1240103

Transcriptional Response of Lymphoblastoid Cells to Ionizing Radiation

Kuang-Yu Jen 1, Vivian G Cheung 1,1
PMCID: PMC403696  PMID: 12915489

Abstract

The effects of ionizing radiation (IR) on the temporal transcriptional response of lymphoblastoid cells were investigated in this study. We used oligonucleotide microarrays to assess mRNA levels of genes in lymphoblastoid cells at various time points within 24 h following γ-irradiation. We identified 319 and 816 IR-responsive genes following 3 Gy and 10 Gy of IR exposure, respectively, with 126 genes in common between the two doses. A high percentage of IR-responsive genes are involved in the control of cell cycle, cell death, DNA repair, DNA metabolism, and RNA processing. We determined the temporal expression profiles of the IR-responsive genes and assessed effects of IR dose on this temporal pattern of expression. By combining dose-response data with temporal profiles of expression, we have identified sets of coordinately responding genes. Through a genomic approach, we characterized a set of genes that are implicated in cellular adaptation to IR stress. These findings will allow a better understanding of complex processes such as radiation-induced carcinogenesis and the development of biomarkers for radiation exposure.


Ionizing radiation (IR) is used extensively in medical diagnostic and treatment protocols. It is also present at low levels throughout the environment. IR poses a major threat to cells by compromising genomic integrity and cellular viability. The increased risk for developing malignancies associated with IR exposure has been well documented (for review, see Bast and Gansler 2000). Even though precautions are taken to minimize exposure of healthy tissues to radiation, medical IR can still confer an increased risk of carcinogenesis to patients.

The manner by which IR damages cells is dependent on the type of radiation. Electromagnetic radiation ionizes cellular components indirectly through the generation of highly reactive free radicals, whereas protons and other heavy particles are direct ionizing agents. The major consequence of IR exposure is the generation of single or double-stranded breaks in DNA, which result in a cascade of events involving a complex network of signal transduction and transcriptional regulation. Damage to DNA elicits a cellular stress response that includes DNA damage recognition and cell cycle arrest, followed by DNA repair or apoptosis. If any of these processes fail, mutations can accumulate in the genome, resulting in malignant transformation of somatic cells or heritable mutations in germ cells.

Previous studies have utilized microarrays to describe gene expression changes associated with IR stress (Amundson et al. 1999, 2000, 2003; Khodarev et al. 2001; Tusher et al. 2001). However, little is known about the temporal pattern of gene expression following IR exposure in normal tissue and how IR dose affects these transcriptional changes. In this study, we used microarrays to conduct a genome-wide survey of the temporal transcriptional response of lymphoblastoid cells to IR exposure. We have identified genes that are induced or repressed following irradiation and have characterized their temporal expression profiles. Furthermore, we have examined the effects of IR dose on these IR-responsive genes. Identification and characterization of IR-responsive genes allow us to begin to understand the molecular mechanisms that underlie the pleiotropic effects of IR.

RESULTS

Transcriptional Profile Analysis of Lymphoblastoid Cells Exposed to 3 GY and 10 GY of Ionizing Radiation

We irradiated lymphoblastoid cells from 10 unrelated individuals at 2 different doses, 3 Gy and 10 Gy. Cells were harvested prior to irradiation (0 h) and at 1, 2, 6, 12, and 24 h after IR exposure. For each time point and dose, RNA was extracted from each cell line and the samples from all 10 individuals were pooled. A separate reference sample consisting of unirradiated lymphoblastoid cells from a different set of 10 individuals was also prepared. Pooled RNA samples were labeled and hybridized onto Affymetrix Human GeneChips (U95A).

Results from the 3 Gy and 10 Gy experiments were analyzed separately. For each gene, changes in expression levels were calculated by comparing the signal intensity of the irradiated sample with that of the unirradiated reference sample. Genes were considered IR responsive if their expression levels postirradiation were significantly different from the reference baseline as determined by the criteria modeled by d-Chip (Li and Wong 2001).

To assess the reproducibility of the microarray-based expression analysis, we compared the results from three independent hybridizations of the same RNA sample onto U95A GeneChip arrays. Labeling reactions and hybridizations were performed separately. The results from the three hybridizations were highly reproducible. By the same criteria used for analyzing the experimental data, only 11 genes of the total 12,559 genes displayed expression level differences in at least 1 of the 3 possible pair-wise comparisons. Of these genes, only 1 gene displayed greater than twofold expression difference between replicates.

IR-Responsive Genes

A total of 319 genes at the 3 Gy dose and 816 genes at the 10 Gy dose displayed changes in expression level compared with baseline (see Supplementary Material, available online at www.genome.org, for complete list). This represents 2.5% and 6.6% of all of the genes on the array, respectively. At the 3 Gy dose, 227 genes were repressed, 87 genes were induced, and 5 genes showed changes in both directions at various time points during the time course. Expression changes ranged from 4.5-fold repression to 5.3-fold induction. In contrast, at the 10 Gy dose, 156 genes were repressed and 660 genes were induced, ranging from 9.3-fold repression to 5.7-fold induction.

We validated a group of genes by quantitative RT–PCR using a different set of cell lines than those used in the microarray study (Fig. 1). In all cases, the quantitative RT–PCR results confirmed the U95A GeneChip data.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Comparison of U95A GeneChip data (gray bars) to quantitative RT–PCR (black bars). The quantitative RT–PCR values are means and standard errors for changes in expression levels (n = 8) at 12 h postirradiation following 10 Gy of IR exposure. GAPDH was used as a negative control. All genes were normalized to β-actin levels. U95A GeneChip values are derived from 10 individual cell lines pooled together at the same experimental conditions.

Functional Characteristics of IR-Responsive Genes

We classified the IR-responsive genes by assigning them to functional groups on the basis of Gene Ontology Consortium (GO) biological process categories (Ashburner et al. 2000; Fig. 2). For comparison, the non-IR-responsive genes on the U95A GeneChip array were also grouped by the same categories. We compared IR-responsive genes at each dose with the non-IR responsive genes on the array by Pearson's χ2 test of independence. Functional information is available for 52% of the genes on the array, and only these genes were included in the analysis. When compared with the non-IR-responsive genes on the array, a significantly larger proportion of IR-responsive genes following 3 Gy of IR exposure are functionally related to cell cycle, DNA metabolism, DNA damage/repair, and RNA processing pathways (P < 0.05 for each comparison after correcting for multiple testing). Similarly, following 10 Gy of IR treatment, a significantly larger proportion of IR-responsive genes are functionally related to cell death and DNA damage/repair pathways.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Functional grouping of IR-responsive genes. A black asterisk indicates categories significantly different from the non-IR-responsive genes on the U95A GeneChip (P <0.05 for each comparison after correcting for multiple testing). A red asterisk indicates categories significantly different between IR-responsive genes for 3 Gy and 10 Gy doses. Only genes with GO designations were used in the analysis. The standard error of the percentage of genes ranges from 1.0% to 3.0% for 3 Gy and 0.6% to 1.5% for 10 Gy.

IR-Responsive Genes in Common Between 3 GY and 10 GY IR Exposure

There are 126 IR-responsive genes in common between the 3 Gy and 10 Gy experiments (Table 1). These genes include a number of p53-dependent genes, general stress response genes, and cell cycle-related genes. Previous reports have shown that p53 plays a key role in response to cellular stress (for review, see Sharpless and DePinho 2002). In our 3 Gy and 10 Gy experiments, we identified several IR-responsive genes that are known to be p53 dependent. These include CDKN1A (p21), GADD45A, and DDB2, which play important roles in cell cycle arrest and DNA repair. Two p53-dependent death receptor genes, TNFRSF6 (Fas/APO-1) and TNFRSF10B (KILLER/DR5), were also induced shortly following IR exposure. Similarly, oxidative stress genes involved in p53-mediated apoptosis, such as PIG3 and FDXR, were up-regulated. Recent reports indicate PIG3 acts to stabilize p53, whereas FDXR generates oxidative stress in mitochondria (Asher et al. 2001; Hwang et al. 2001). Additionally, genes involved in general stress adaptation were also induced at both doses of IR exposure. Some examples include HSPCB, HSPE1, ATF3, and PPM1D. HSPCB and HSPE1 encode heat shock proteins, whereas ATF3 and PPM1D are downstream targets of MAP kinase signaling pathways. Many cyclins (CCNB1, CCNG1, CCNA2) and cell cycle-related genes (CDC20, CHC1, MCM6) displayed gene expression changes as well.

Table 1.

IR-Responsive Genes in Common for Both 3 Gy and 10 Gy of IR Exposure

Accession no. Gene name Gene symbol 3Gy cluster 10 Gy cluster
Cell cycle
    X61123 B-cell translocation gene 1, anti-proliferative BTG1 7 2
    X51688 cyclin A2 (probe 1943_at) CCNA2 12 13
    X51688 cyclin A2 (probe 40697_at) CCNA2 12 13
    X77794 cyclin G1 CCNG1 7 3
    U05340 CDC20 cell division cycle 20 homolog CDC20 8 13
    U03106 cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1A (p21, Clp1) CDKN1A 11 0
    X54942 CDC28 protein kinase 2 CKS2 8 9
    M59287 CDC-like kinase 1 (probe 32833_at) CLK1 14 6
    HG3484-HT3678 CDC-like kinase 1 (probe 292_s_at) CLK1 10 1
    AB013924 lysosomal-associated membrane protein 3 LAMP3 3 3
    V00568 v-myc myelocytomatosis viral oncogene homolog MYC 8 9
    U77735 pim-2 oncogene PIM2 6 6
    D38583 S100 calcium binding protein A11 S100A11 2 7
    X02530 small inducible cytokine subfamily B, member 10 SCYB10 12 4
    L08096 tumor necrosis factor (ligand) superfamily, member 7 TNFSF7 3 11
    U03398 tumor necrosis factor (ligand) superfamily, member 9 TNFSF9 11 4
    U58334 tumor protein p53 binding protein, 2 TP53BP2 14 4
Cell death
    L22473 BCL2-associated X protein BAX 3 11
    U45878 baculoviral IAP repeat-containing 3 BIRC3 6 6
    AF079221 BCL2/adenovirus E1B 19 kD interacting protein 3-like BNIP3L 10 7
    L06797 chemokine (C-X-C motif), receptor 4 CXCR4 13 4
    U33838 v-rel reticuloendotheliosis viral oncogene homolog A (probe 1045_s_at) RELA 0 11
    L19067 v-rel reticuloendotheliosis viral oncogene homolog A (probe 1295_at) RELA 14 5
    AF016266 tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily, member 10b TNFRSF10B 15 1
    X83490 tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily, member 6 (probe 1440_s_at) TNFRSF6 15 1
    X83492 tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily, member 6 (probe 1441_s_at) TNFRSF6 15 1
    X63717 tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily, member 6 (probe 37643_at) TNFRSF6 7 1
Development
    X98296 ubiquitin specific protease 9, X chromosome USP9X 10 6
DNA metabolism
    D00591 chromosome condensation 1 CHC1 12 14
    M87339 replication factor C (activator 1) 4 RFC4 13 8
    D87012 topoisomerase (DNA) III β TOP3B 0 15
DNA repair
    U72649 BTG family, member 2 BTG2 6 3
    U18300 damage-specific DNA-binding protein 2 DDB2 3 3
    HG4074-HT4344 flap structure-specific endonuclease 1 FEN1 12 8
    M60974 growth arrest and DNA-damage-inducible, α GADD45A 11 0
    U28946 mutS homolog 6 MSH6 13 8
    U78305 protein phosphatase 1D magnesium-dependent, δ isoform PPM1D 15 0
Metabolism
    U29344 fatty acid synthase FASN 4 13
    J03826 ferredoxin reductase FDXR 3 2
    J03459 leukotriene A4 hydrolase LTA4H 10 2
    X04371 2′,5′-oligoadenylate synthetase 1 OAS1 5 10
    X53793 phosphoribosylaminoimidazole carboxylase PAICS 12 13
    D50840 UDP-glucose ceramide glucosyltransferase UGCG 13 5
Protein modification
    M91670 ubiquitin carrier protein (probe 40619_at) E2-EPF 4 13
    M91670 ubiquitin carrier protein (probe 893_at) E2-EPF 8 13
    A1912041 heat shock 10 kD protein 1 (chaperonin 10) HSPE1 8 13
    U60899 mannosidase, α, class 2B, member 1 MAN2B1 3 3
RNA processing
    X79536 heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein A1 HNRPA1 14 0
    M65028 heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein A/B HNRPAB 12 12
    Y12065 nucleolar protein 5A NOL5A 8 12
    X75755 splicing factor, arginine/serine-rich 2 SFRS2 8 12
    U75679 stem-loop (histone) binding protein SLBP 8 12
Signaling
    U50939 amyloid β precursor protein-binding protein 1 APPBP1 13 4
    Z11697 CD83 antigen CD83 6 6
    M86868 γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor, rho 2 GABRR2 0 15
    AB001106 glia maturation factor, β GMFB 14 4
    AF034633 G protein-coupled receptor 39 GPR39 0 14
    Z49835 glucose regulated protein, 58 kD GRP58 12 15
    Y10805 HMT1 hnRNP methyltransferase-like 2 HRMT-1L2 12 12
    M16038 v-yes-1 Yamaguchi sarcoma viral related oncogene homolog LYN 1 5
    AC005775 mucosal vascular addressin cell adhesion molecule 1 MADCAM1 0 15
    X70070 neurotensin receptor 1 NTSR1 0 15
    U81802 phosphatidylinositol 4-kinase, catalytic, β polypeptide PIK4CB 14 1
    J04130 small inducible cytokine A4 SCYA4 5 10
Stress
    M86752 stress-induced-phosphoprotein 1 STIP1 13 13
Structure
    U03851 capping protein (actin filament) muscle Z-line α 2 CAPZA2 14 4
    D14705 catenin (cadherin-associated protein), α 1 CTNNA1 10 3
    U60060 fasciculation and elongation protein ζ 1 FEZ1 2 3
Transcription
    X74142 forkhead box G1B FOXG1B 14 7
    Y09615 transcription termination factor, mitochondrial MTERF 14 0
    AF012108 nuclear receptor coactivator 3 NCOA3 10 7
    U21858 TAF9 RNA polymerase II TAF9 14 4
    AB011076 undifferentiated embryonic cell transcription factor 1 UTF1 0 15
    L04282 zinc finger protein 148 ZNF148 15 1
Transport
    U70322 karyopherin (importin) β 2 KPNB2 13 14
    X97544 translocase of inner mitochondrial membrane 17 homolog A TIMM17A 13 4
    U94592 uncoupling protein 2 UCP2 2 7
Other
    M13792 adenosine deaminase ADA 2 7
    AF022991 period homolog 1 PER1 0 15
No biological process GO listing
    X13839 actin, α 2, smooth muscle, aorta ACTA2 3 2
    AI800578 S-adenosylhomocysteine hydrolase-like 1 AHCYL1 10 2
    AB018328 Ac-like transposable element ALTE 15 1
    L19871 activating transcription factor 3 ATF3 14 4
    W68046 BTB (POZ) domain containing 2 BTBD2 0 15
    D78586 carbamoyl-phosphate synthetase 2 CAD 12 12
    M25753 cyclin B1 (probe 1945_at) CCNB1 9 9
    M25753 cyclin B1 (probe 34736_at) CCNB1 8 9
    L05424 CD44 antigen (probe 1126_s_at) CD44 2 6
    M59040 CD44 antigen (probe 2036_s_at) CD44 1 7
    L14813 carboxyl ester lipase-like CELL 0 14
    M33653 collagen, type XIII, α 1 COL13A1 0 14
    U41387 DEAD/H (Asp-Glu-Ala-Asp/His) box polypeptide 21 DDX21 14 12
    AL050141 hypothetical protein FLJ20719 FLJ20719 6 10
    M29877 fucosidase, α-L-1, tissue FUCA1 3 3
    AI275093 hairy and enhancer of split homolog 2 HES2 0 11
    AL021546 hypothetical protein HSPC132 HSPC132 11 0
    W28616 heat shock 90 kD protein 1, β HSPCB 13 0
    AI254524 translation initiation factor IF2 IF2 14 4
    AF026939 interferon-induced protein with tetratricopeptide repeats 4 IFIT4 10 6
    AI307607 KIAA1096 protein KIAA1096 13 0
    M25629 kallikrein 1, renal/pancreas/salivary KLK1 1 7
    Z49107 lectin, galactoside-binding, soluble, 9 LGALS9 2 7
    L37747 lamin B1 LMNB1 13 13
    D84557 MCM6 minichromosome maintenance deficient 6 MCM6 12 12
    AJ003147 matrix metalloproteinase-like 1 MMPL1 0 15
    W27995 myosin, heavy polypeptide 10, non-muscle MYH10 0 9
    AF052142 neurocalcin δ NCALD 10 2
    X16277 ornithine decarboxylase 1 ODC1 12 13
    U30521 P311 protein P311 10 6
    AL080119 PAI-1 mRNA-binding protein PAI-RBP1 8 13
    Z29505 poly(rC) bonding protein 1 PCBP1 4 14
    AB028974 paternally expressed 10 PEG10 13 12
    AF010309 quinone oxidoreductase homolog PIG3 2 3
    M61906 phosphoinositide-3-kinase, regulatory subunit, polypeptide 1 PIK3R1 14 1
    AB002313 plexin B2 PLXNB2 3 3
    L13977 prolylcarboxypeptidase (angiotensinase C) PRCP 7 3
    W29065 protein tyrosine phosphatase type IVA, member 3 PTP4A3 0 14
    AA522530 HIF-1 responsive RTP801 RTP801 4 3
    AL050290 spermidine/spermine N1-acetyltransferase SAT 2 7
    HG172-HT3924 spermidine/spermine N1-acetyltransferase SAT 6 7
    M64231 spermidine synthase SRM 12 12
    X92396 synaptobrevin-like 1 SYBL1 15 2
    X56841 transketolase (Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome) TKT 5 10
    X02883 T cell receptor α locus TRA 10 2
    AL021306 Human DNA sequence from clone CTB-1109B5 on chromosome 22 N/A 0 15
    AA806239 SNC73 protein N/A 9 0

The numbers designated in the cluster columns refer to cluster number in Fig. 4.

IR-Responsive Genes Specific for 3 GY Or 10 GY IR Exposure

A large number of genes appear to respond specifically to only one of the IR doses. The higher radiation dose elicited transcriptional changes in a larger number of genes. The greater degree of insult caused by a higher radiation dose triggers a more complex response.

Specifically, 10 Gy of IR induced a number of DNA repair genes, including BLM, ERCC4, NBS1, RAD51C, and XPC, which are not affected at the 3 Gy dose. In addition, the p53-regulated genes, MDM2 and PCNA, displayed increased expression levels. A higher radiation dose also activated many cell death-related genes, including a large group of anti-apoptotic genes (BAG2, BCL2, BCL2A1, BCL2L2, and BNIP3). Although interferon transcripts did not show detectable changes in levels, several transcripts for interferon-inducible proteins along with those for interferon α and γ receptors showed elevated expression levels by 24 h postirradiation. MAP kinase-associated genes, such as MAP2K4, MAP2K6, MAP3K5, and MAP3K7IP2, were also induced at later time points during the 24-h time course. Finally, the higher radiation dose caused increased transcript levels of a group of oxidative stress genes, including ATX1, OSR1, NFE2L2, GPX1, and GPX4.

In contrast, a large number of RNA processing/modification genes show gene expression changes specifically at the 3 Gy dose. These include hnRNPs (HNRPC, HNRPD, HNRPH3, HNRPM, HNRPR, and HNRPU) and splicing factors (SFRS1, SFRS3, SFRS6, and SFRS10), which display a gradual decline in transcript levels through the 24-h period following IR exposure.

Irradiation Dose-Dependent Gene Expression Patterns

To understand the effects of IR dose on temporal expression patterns of IR-responsive genes, we focused on the 126 genes that responded to both doses of IR and compared their expression profiles. For each of these IR-responsive genes, the correlation coefficient between the 3 Gy and 10 Gy expression profiles was calculated.

Figure 3A shows that the temporal pattern of expression for certain genes remains quite similar between the two IR doses. The 10 Gy IR dose caused a larger magnitude of expression change for some of the genes, whereas other genes showed identical transcriptional profiles following either IR dose. Most of these genes with similar profiles at both doses are late IR-responsive genes, which exhibit gradual induction or repression kinetics.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Genes with the most similar (A) and the least similar (B) expression profiles between the 3 Gy (solid line) and 10 Gy (broken line) doses. For each gene, the correlation coefficients between the expression profiles are indicated at the top, right.

Conversely, there are genes that display extremely different temporal expression patterns at varied IR doses (Fig. 3B). The majority of these genes are early responders to IR damage. At the 3 Gy dose, these IR-responsive genes exhibit transient expression changes that peak at 2 h postirradiation. In contrast, at the 10 Gy dose, these genes exhibit more rapid gene expression changes (occurring at 1 h postirradiation) that last longer in duration. Experiments using quantitative RT–PCR showed that return to basal expression levels of some genes is reached after ∼72 h postirradiation (data not shown).

Coordinated Expression Profiles of IR-Responsive Genes

Although some IR-responsive genes display different temporal expression patterns depending on the dose of IR exposure, there are groups of genes that show very similar temporal expression patterns relative to each other at both the 3 Gy and 10 Gy IR doses. These genes are of interest, as this similarity may imply that related pathways regulate these groups of IR-responsive genes.

To identify sets of genes that are highly correlated in their expression patterns at both doses, we grouped the 126 IR-responsive genes that are in common between the doses by similarity in their temporal expression patterns using GeneCluster 2.0 (Golub et al. 1999; Tamayo et al. 1999). This program creates gene clusters by using self-organizing map (SOM) algorithms. The IR-responsive genes were grouped into 16 clusters at each dose, generating sets of genes with distinct patterns (Fig. 4). Then, we searched specifically for groups of genes that clustered together at both 3 Gy and 10 Gy IR doses.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Gene expression patterns for the 126 IR-responsive genes in common between 3 Gy (A) and 10 Gy (B) doses. Clusters were generated using self-organizing maps (GeneCluster 2.0). Clusters for each dose were calculated separately. For each cluster, the cluster number is indicated at the top, left, and the number of genes assigned to each cluster is indicated at the top, right. Graphs for each cluster show cluster means (black line) flanked by standard deviations (red lines). Each gene was normalized across time points to have mean = 0 and SD = 1.

Several groups of known coregulated genes were found (Fig. 5). For example, the known p53-regulated genes, CDNK1A and GADD45A, clustered together in both the 3 Gy and 10 Gy experiments (Fig. 5A). Both of these genes are important downstream effectors of the p53 pathway and are involved in similar pathways. The gene for a hypothetical protein HSPC132 also clusters with CDNK1A and GADD45A, which suggests that HSPC132 may be regulated by p53, and may play an important role in the p53 pathway. Similarly, the two tumor necrosis factor superfamily genes TNFRSF6 (Fas/Apo-1) and TNFRSF10B (DR5) along with two genes with zinc finger domains (ZNF148 and ALTE) were tightly clustered together (Fig. 5B). The tumor necrosis factor superfamily genes are involved in p53-dependent induction of apoptosis, and ZNF148 is a transcription factor shown recently to stabilize p53 (Bai and Merchant 2001).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Examples of sets of IR-responsive genes that belong to the same cluster, independent of IR dosage. Dose and cluster membership (see Fig. 4) are indicated to the right of each graph.

We recognize that the likelihood for small groups containing three or four genes to cluster together by chance is high. Therefore, we examined our data to identify larger clusters that are less likely to occur by chance. Within our SOM data, there are four groups of five genes, one group of six genes, and one group of nine genes that exhibit coordinated transcriptional IR response. Examples are shown in Figure 5, C and D.

DISCUSSION

The cellular response to IR consists of an integrated network of protein signaling and transcriptionally regulated pathways. In this study, we focused on the transcriptional changes resulting from IR insult. By using high-density microarrays in conjunction with quantitative RT–PCR, we have identified a set of IR-responsive genes in lymphoblastoid cells, described their temporal expression profiles, and examined effects of IR dose on these temporal patterns of gene expression. We focused on using dose and time parameters to elucidate the complex transcriptional processes that are involved in response to DNA damage resulting from IR exposure.

The main effect of IR on cells is manifested as genotoxic stress resulting from damaged DNA. Part of the cellular response involves stabilization of p53 protein. This increase in p53 protein levels then causes the induction of many genes including ACTA2, CDKN1A, DDB2, FDXR, GADD45A, PIG3, TNFRSF6, and TNFSF10B (Amundson et al. 1999, 2000; Zhao et al. 2000; Kannan et al. 2001; Tusher et al. 2001). All of these genes are shown to be IR-responsive in our study at both 3 Gy and 10 Gy doses. The up-regulation of these genes leads to a diverse set of events, including cell cycle arrest, DNA repair, and apoptosis. Specifically, in the case of TNFRSF6 and TNFRSF10B, these death receptors initiate FADD-dependent activation of caspase activity upon ligand binding. Recent studies have shown that IR can act as a response-enhancing agent for both TNFRSF6 and TNFRSF10B-mediated apoptosis (Reap et al. 1997; Sheikh et al. 1998; Nishioka et al. 1999; Gong and Almasan 2000; Sheard 2001; Embree-Ku et al. 2002). This evidence lends further support for the major role that these death receptor pathways may play in IR-related apoptosis.

Comparison of gene expression profiles for the 3 Gy and 10 Gy IR-responsive genes revealed pertinent characteristics of the pathways involved in response to IR stress. The IR-responsive genes displayed either an early response to IR damage within the first 2 h after IR exposure or a late response that does not become apparent until after 6 h or more following IR treatment.

A number of early IR-responsive genes exhibited marked differences in temporal expression pattern as a result of increased IR dose. Most of these genes displayed transient expression changes that peaked 2 h following 3 Gy of IR exposure and returned to basal levels by 6-h postirradiation. However, at 10 Gy, the same genes responded even faster by showing a rapid increase in gene expression at 1 h postirradiation, and the expression levels remained high throughout the 24-h time course. In addition, a higher radiation dose caused a larger magnitude of change in gene expression, although the increase in magnitude was not proportional to the increase in IR dose. The higher radiation dose generated more DNA damage, which likely caused a more rapid response by the early IR-responsive genes. Functionally, several early IR-responsive genes act as immediate effectors of check-point control and activators of repair and apoptotic pathways. Many of these genes are primary targets of p53, and others may be direct targets of signaling pathways involved in IR damage detection. These genes are crucial in the first steps of properly dealing with IR stress. Therefore, early IR-responsive genes must be quick to react to IR exposure in order to prevent propagation of the detrimental effects of IR.

On the contrary, most late IR-responsive genes exhibited similar temporal gene expression patterns even with varied IR dose. These genes are most likely downstream targets of early IR-responsive effectors. A large number of these late responders were down-regulated gradually during the 24-h time course, which may be due to the shutdown of various pathways as a result of cell death. Other late IR-responsive genes are cell cycle-related or cell cycle-regulated genes. The apparent increase or decrease in expression levels of some of these genes is due to cell cycle arrest and synchronization of the cell population following DNA damage.

We also found sets of genes whose expression profiles are highly correlated at the 3 Gy and 10 Gy doses. Although the pathways regulating the expression profiles of these genes are unknown, their coordinated responses suggest coregulation through common regulatory elements.

Specifically, following 10 Gy of IR treatment, several MAP kinase and MAP kinase-related genes are transcriptionally induced. MAP kinases have been implicated in a variety of biological responses, one of which is stress-induced apoptosis. The MAP kinase pathway is comprised of three distinct components, ERK, JNK, and p38. JNK and p38 are stimulated by various stress and pathogenic insults, whereas ERK responds to mitogenic and differentiation signals (for review, see Herr and Debatin 2001). Although MAP kinases act at the protein level in signaling cascades, the alteration in their mRNA levels may be secondary effects of pathway activation. ATF3 and PPM1D, which exhibit dramatic increases in expression levels following IR stress, may be activated through MAP kinase signaling. ATF3, a member of the mammalian ATF/CREB protein family of transcription factors, is induced by a variety of stress conditions (Chen et al. 1996). Previous reports suggest that ATF3 induction may be due to MAP3K1 (MEKK1) and JNK activation (Liang et al. 1996; Cai et al. 2000). Recent evidence has shown oncogenic properties related to the amplification of PPM1D (Bulavin et al. 2002; Li et al. 2002). PPM1D induction results from p38 activation and mediates negative feedback regulation of p38 MAPK-p53 signaling in response to UV (Fiscella et al. 1997; Takekawa et al. 2000). However, its role in IR stress remains unclear.

Many downstream targets of interferon were induced gradually following IR treatment, even though interferon transcripts did not show detectable changes in transcript levels. It is known that in response to viral infections, interferon operates through the JAK-STAT pathway to mediate transcriptional changes in target genes. This results in antiproliferative effects, which help to suppress viral replication. In the case of IR stress, interferon activity may be promoting the same effects to prevent propagation of DNA damage. In addition, some studies have shown that interferon and other cytokines can sensitize tumor cells to IR damage (Sirota et al. 1996; Gruninger et al. 1999; Schmidberger et al. 1999; McKinney et al. 2000; Nikitina and Gabrilovich 2001).

Specific to the 3 Gy experiments, RNA processing genes including many hnRNPs, and splicing factors were gradually down-regulated during the 24-h time course. There are previous reports of cleavage of some hnRNP proteins as a result of apoptosis, including IR-induced apoptosis (Waterhouse et al. 1996). Others have reported increase in some hnRNPs following UV stress with certain hnRNPs accumulating in the cytoplasm by a p38-dependent pathway (Sheikh et al. 1997; van der Houven van Oordt et al. 2000). However, to our knowledge, evidence for decrease in transcript levels of hnRNPs and splicing factors found in the present study has never been reported.

The findings in this study elucidated parts of the intricate network of genes that are involved in the IR-response. A better understanding of the molecular components and pathways involved in cellular IR stress response will improve our understanding of complex processes such as carcinogenesis and radiation sensitivity. Medically, some of the IR-induced genes can be used as molecular markers for IR exposure.

METHODS

Tissue Culture

Ten lymphoblastoid cell lines (Coriell Cell Repositories) from members of the Centre d'Etude du Polymorphisme Humain (CEPH) families were grown at a density of 5 × 105 cells/mL in RMPI 1620 with 15% FBS. These individuals are not known to be related. Equal numbers of males and females were chosen. Cells were irradiated at 3 Gy and 10 Gy in a 137Cs irradiator. Cells were harvested prior to irradiation (0 h) and at 1, 2, 6, 12, and 24 h after IR exposure. Total RNA was extracted using RNeasy mini-kit (QIAGEN). A reference sample consisting of unirradiated cells from a different set of 10 CEPH individuals was also prepared in the same manner.

Probe Preparation and Hybridization

Total RNA from the experimental and reference groups were pooled according to time point and IR dose. Each pooled total RNA sample (5 μg) was used for probe preparation and hybridization onto U95A GeneChip arrays according to the manufacturer's suggestion (Affymetrix).

Data Analysis

For each gene, expression change was calculated by comparing the signal intensity of the irradiated sample (E) to that of the unirradiated reference sample (B) using d-Chip (Li and Wong 2001). Genes were considered IR-responsive if all of the following conditions were met: (1) E and/or B exceed a threshold, |E-B| > 25th percentile of signal intensities of all the genes assayed; (2) Changes in signal intensity exceed a threshold, the lower confidence bound of the 90% confidence interval for E/B or B/E is >1.5; (3) E and B are significantly different with nominal P < 0.05 (t-test).

Quantitative RT–PCR

We selected 13 genes from the 126 IR-responsive genes that are in common between the two IR doses for validation. Gene expression changes were assayed in lymphoblastoid cells from eight CEPH individuals not used in the U95A GeneChip experiments. Each individual was assessed separately (no pooling of RNA) at the 12-h postirradiation time point following 10 Gy of IR exposure. Pooled total RNA samples (2 μg) were reverse transcribed in a total volume of 100 μL, and diluted to 400 μL. The diluted cDNA (2.5 μL) was used as template for each quantitative PCR reaction. Primers for specific genes were designed using Primer Express software (Applied Biosystems). Quantitative PCR was carried out following the SYBR Green protocol (Applied Biosystems). Assays were performed in triplicate. Relative expression levels were obtained by calculating ddCt normalized to β-actin levels.

Acknowledgments

We thank Drs. Gerd A. Blobel, Greg H. Enders, Warren J. Ewens, Alan M. Gewirtz, Haig H. Kazazian Jr., and Richard S. Spielman for their comments and suggestions. K.Y.J. is supported by NIH training grant GM08216. This work was supported by NIH grant DC00154 and the W.W. Smith Endowed Chair (V.G.C.).

The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 USC section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

[Supplemental material available online at www.genome.org.]

Article and publication are at http://www.genome.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gr.1240103. Article published online before print in August 2003.

References

  1. Amundson, S.A., Bittner, M., Chen, Y., Trent, J., Meltzer, P., and Fornace Jr., A.J. 1999. Fluorescent cDNA microarray hybridization reveals complexity and heterogeneity of cellular genotoxic stress responses. Oncogene 18: 3666–3672. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Amundson, S.A., Do, K.T., Shahab, S., Bittner, M., Meltzer, P., Trent, J., and Fornace Jr., A.J. 2000. Identification of potential mRNA biomarkers in peripheral blood lymphocytes for human exposure to ionizing radiation. Radiat. Res. 154: 342–346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Amundson, S.A., Lee, R.A., Kock-Paiz, C.A., Bittner, M.L., Meltzer, P., Trent, J.M., and Fornace Jr., A.J. 2003. Differential responses of stress genes to low dose-rate γ irradiation. Mol. Cancer Res. 1: 445–452. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ashburner, M., Ball, C.A., Blake, J.A., Botstein, D., Butler, H., Cherry, J.M., Davis, A.P., Dolinski, K., Dwight, S.S., Eppig, J.T., et al. 2000. Gene ontology: Tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat. Genet. 25: 25–29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Asher, G., Lotem, J., Cohen, B., Sachs, L., and Shaul, Y. 2001. Regulation of p53 stability and p53-dependent apoptosis by NADH quinone oxidoreductase 1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98: 1188–1193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bai, L. and Merchant, J.L. 2001. ZBP-89 promotes growth arrest through stabilization of p53. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21: 4670–4683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bast, R.C. and Gansler, T.S. 2000. Cancer medicine e.5. Decker, Hamilton, Ont.; Lewiston, NY.
  8. Bulavin, D.V., Demidov, O.N., Saito, S., Kauraniemi, P., Phillips, C., Amundson, S.A., Ambrosino, C., Sauter, G., Nebreda, A.R., Anderson, C.W., et al. 2002. Amplification of PPM1D in human tumors abrogates p53 tumor-suppressor activity. Nat. Genet. 31: 210–215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cai, Y., Zhang, C., Nawa, T., Aso, T., Tanaka, M., Oshiro, S., Ichijo, H., and Kitajima, S. 2000. Homocysteine-responsive ATF3 gene expression in human vascular endothelial cells: Activation of c-Jun NH(2)-terminal kinase and promoter response element. Blood 96: 2140–2148. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, B.P., Wolfgang, C.D., and Hai, T. 1996. Analysis of ATF3, a transcription factor induced by physiological stresses and modulated by gadd153/Chop10. Mol. Cell. Biol. 16: 1157–1168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Embree-Ku, M., Venturini, D., and Boekelheide, K. 2002. Fas is involved in the p53-dependent apoptotic response to ionizing radiation in mouse testis. Biol. Reprod. 66: 1456–1461. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Fiscella, M., Zhang, H., Fan, S., Sakaguchi, K., Shen, S., Mercer, W.E., Vande Woude, G.F., O'Connor, P.M., and Appella, E. 1997. Wip1, a novel human protein phosphatase that is induced in response to ionizing radiation in a p53-dependent manner. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 94: 6048–6053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Golub, T.R., Slonim, D.K., Tamayo, P., Huard, C., Gaasenbeek, M., Mesirov, J.P., Coller, H., Loh, M.L., Downing, J.R., Caligiuri, M.A., et al. 1999. Molecular classification of cancer: Class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science 286: 531–537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gong, B. and Almasan, A. 2000. Apo2 ligand/TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand and death receptor 5 mediate the apoptotic signaling induced by ionizing radiation in leukemic cells. Cancer Res. 60: 5754–5760. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gruninger, L., Cottin, E., Li, Y.X., Noel, A., Ozsahin, M., and Coucke, P.A. 1999. Sensitizing human cervical cancer cells In vitro to ionizing radiation with interferon β or γ. Radiat. Res. 152: 493–498. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Herr, I. and Debatin, K.M. 2001. Cellular stress response and apoptosis in cancer therapy. Blood 98: 2603–2614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hwang, P.M., Bunz, F., Yu, J., Rago, C., Chan, T.A., Murphy, M.P., Kelso, G.F., Smith, R.A., Kinzler, K.W., and Vogelstein, B. 2001. Ferredoxin reductase affects p53-dependent, 5-fluorouracil-induced apoptosis in colorectal cancer cells. Nat. Med. 7: 1111–1117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kannan, K., Amariglio, N., Rechavi, G., Jakob-Hirsch, J., Kela, I., Kaminski, N., Getz, G., Domany, E., and Givol, D. 2001. DNA microarrays identification of primary and secondary target genes regulated by p53. Oncogene 20: 2225–2234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Khodarev, N.N., Park, J.O., Yu, J., Gupta, N., Nodzenski, E., Roizman, B., and Weichselbaum, R.R. 2001. Dose-dependent and independent temporal patterns of gene responses to ionizing radiation in normal and tumor cells and tumor xenografts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98: 12665–12670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Li, C. and Wong, W.H. 2001. Model-based analysis of oligonucleotide arrays: Expression index computation and outlier detection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98: 31–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Li, J., Yang, Y., Peng, Y., Austin, R.J., van Eyndhoven, W.G., Nguyen, K.C., Gabriele, T., McCurrach, M.E., Marks, J.R., Hoey, T., et al. 2002. Oncogenic properties of PPM1D located within a breast cancer amplification epicenter at 17q23. Nat. Genet. 31: 133–134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Liang, G., Wolfgang, C.D., Chen, B.P., Chen, T.H., and Hai, T. 1996. ATF3 gene. Genomic organization, promoter, and regulation. J. Biol. Chem. 271: 1695–1701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. McKinney, L.C., Aquilla, E.M., Coffin, D., Wink, D.A., and Vodovotz, Y. 2000. Ionizing radiation potentiates the induction of nitric oxide synthase by interferon-γ and/or lipopolysaccharide in murine macrophage cell lines. Role of tumor necrosis factor-α. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 899: 61–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Nikitina, E.Y. and Gabrilovich, D.I. 2001. Combination of γ-irradiation and dendritic cell administration induces a potent antitumor response in tumor-bearing mice: Approach to treatment of advanced stage cancer. Int. J. Cancer 94: 825–833. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Nishioka, A., Ogawa, Y., Kubonishi, I., Kataoka, S., Hamada, N., Terashima, M., Inomata, T., and Yoshida, S. 1999. An augmentation of Fas (CD95/APO-1) antigen induced by radiation: Flow cytometry analysis of lymphoma and leukemia cell lines. Int. J. Mol. Med. 3: 275–278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Reap, E.A., Roof, K., Maynor, K., Borrero, M., Booker, J., and Cohen, P.L. 1997. Radiation and stress-induced apoptosis: A role for Fas/Fas ligand interactions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 94: 5750–5755. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Schmidberger, H., Rave-Frank, M., Lehmann, J., Schweinfurth, S., Rehring, E., Henckel, K., and Hess, C.F. 1999. The combined effect of interferon β and radiation on five human tumor cell lines and embryonal lung fibroblasts. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 43: 405–412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Sharpless, N.E. and DePinho, R.A. 2002. p53: Good cop/bad cop. Cell 110: 9–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Sheard, M.A. 2001. Ionizing radiation as a response-enhancing agent for CD95-mediated apoptosis. Int. J. Cancer 96: 213–220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Sheikh, M.S., Carrier, F., Papathanasiou, M.A., Hollander, M.C., Zhan, Q., Yu, K., and Fornace Jr., A.J. 1997. Identification of several human homologs of hamster DNA damage-inducible transcripts. Cloning and characterization of a novel UV-inducible cDNA that codes for a putative RNA-binding protein. J. Biol. Chem. 272: 26720–26726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Sheikh, M.S., Burns, T.F., Huang, Y., Wu, G.S., Amundson, S., Brooks, K.S., Fornace Jr., A.J., and el-Deiry, W.S. 1998. p53-dependent and -independent regulation of the death receptor KILLER/DR5 gene expression in response to genotoxic stress and tumor necrosis factor α. Cancer Res. 58: 1593–1598. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Sirota, N.P., Bezlepkin, V.G., Kuznetsova, E.A., Lomayeva, M.G., Milonova, I.N., Ravin, V.K., Gaziev, A.I., and Bradbury, R.J. 1996. Modifying effect in vivo of interferon α on induction and repair of lesions of DNA of lymphoid cells of γ-irradiated mice. Radiat. Res. 146: 100–105. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Takekawa, M., Adachi, M., Nakahata, A., Nakayama, I., Itoh, F., Tsukuda, H., Taya, Y., and Imai, K. 2000. p53-inducible wip1 phosphatase mediates a negative feedback regulation of p38 MAPK-p53 signaling in response to UV radiation. EMBO J. 19: 6517–6526. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Tamayo, P., Slonim, D., Mesirov, J., Zhu, Q., Kitareewan, S., Dmitrovsky, E., Lander, E.S., and Golub, T.R. 1999. Interpreting patterns of gene expression with self-organizing maps: Methods and application to hematopoietic differentiation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 96: 2907–2912. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Tusher, V.G., Tibshirani, R., and Chu, G. 2001. Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98: 5116–5121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. van der Houven van Oordt, W., Diaz-Meco, M.T., Lozano, J., Krainer, A.R., Moscat, J., and Caceres, J.F. 2000. The MKK(3/6)-p38-signaling cascade alters the subcellular distribution of hnRNP A1 and modulates alternative splicing regulation. J. Cell Biol. 149: 307–316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Waterhouse, N., Kumar, S., Song, Q., Strike, P., Sparrow, L., Dreyfuss, G., Alnemri, E.S., Litwack, G., Lavin, M., and Watters, D. 1996. Heteronuclear ribonucleoproteins C1 and C2, components of the spliceosome, are specific targets of interleukin 1β-converting enzyme-like proteases in apoptosis. J. Biol. Chem. 271: 29335–29341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhao, R., Gish, K., Murphy, M., Yin, Y., Notterman, D., Hoffman, W.H., Tom, E., Mack, D.H., and Levine, A.J. 2000. Analysis of p53-regulated gene expression patterns using oligonucleotide arrays. Genes & Dev. 14: 981–993. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genome Research are provided here courtesy of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

RESOURCES