Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Correlation Between DNA Double-Strand Break Distribution in 3D Genome and Radiation-Induced Cell Death

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that how DNA double-strand breaks are distributed across topologically associating domains in the 3D genome, not merely how many there are, determines radiation-induced cell death, with breaks in frequently interacting…

desk verdict Fitted ordering presented as simulation result; the three-case TAD hypothesis is fresh and worth peer review, but the abstract overstates the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07579 v4 pith:73U4ZOM7 submitted 2024-12-27 physics.med-ph physics.bio-ph

Ankang Hu , Wanyi Zhou , Xiyu Luo , Rui Qiu , Junli Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-phphysics.bio-ph
keywords ionizingradiationDNAdouble-strandbreak3Dgenometopologicallyassociatingdomainradiation-inducedcelldeathrelativebiologicaleffectivenesstrack-structureMonteCarlosimulationqualityfactor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that where double-strand breaks (DSBs) land in the 3D genome, not just how many there are, decides how likely a cell is to die after irradiation. It sorts DSBs into three patterns relative to topologically associating domains (TADs): isolated breaks, breaks clustered inside a single TAD, and breaks spread across TADs that interact frequently with one another. Using a track-structure Monte Carlo simulation of electrons and carbon ions on a Hi-C-based nuclear model, the authors count how often each pattern occurs at each dose and fit three cell-type-specific death probabilities to published survival curves. The fitted ordering $p_3 > p_2 > p_1$ says breaks in frequently interacting TADs are the most lethal, followed by clustered breaks in a single TAD, then isolated breaks. If true, the 3D genome becomes a strong candidate for the 'target' of classical target theory, with consequences for predicting survival curves and relative biological effectiveness across doses and LETs.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the three-case classification of DSB distribution across TADs; a TAD, or topologically associating domain, is the sub-micron spherical chromatin unit of the Hi-C-derived 3D nuclear model, and each case is read off the pattern of DSBs against the Hi-C interaction matrix. The survival equation $-\ln S = p_1 n_1 + p_2 n_2 + p_3 n_3$ ties the simulated pattern counts to cell death through three fitted lethality probabilities, and a set of fitted polynomial dose curves (Eq. 5) supplies $n_1$, $n_2$, $n_3$ so the model can be evaluated at any dose and LET. Case 3's definition depends on the list of frequently interacting TADs obtained by statistical testing of Hi-C contacts at a 1% false-discovery rate, and the DSB identification depends on an energy-dependent strand-break probability rising from 0 at 5 eV to 1 at 37.5 eV, a 14.1% DNA-hit fraction, and clustering of opposite-strand breaks within 3.2 nm.

What would settle it

Arrange for equal numbers of DSBs in otherwise identical cells but delivered as isolated breaks, breaks clustered in one TAD, or breaks spread across frequently interacting TADs (for example with targeted endonucleases), and compare survival; if survival does not differ between the three arrangements, the ordering $p_3 > p_2 > p_1$ collapses. A cheaper indirect test: take the probabilities fitted at about 75 keV/µm and predict RBE for helium ions or for carbon ions at other LETs; systematic failure would show the lethalities depend on radiation quality, contradicting the model's core assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a double-strand break (DSB)'s lethality depends on its location in the 3D genome: breaks in topologically associating domains (TADs) that interact frequently with each other (case 3) are more likely to kill the cell than clustered breaks within a single TAD (case 2), and case 2 is more lethal than an isolated DSB (case 1). Quantitatively, the claim is the ordering $p_3 > p_2 > p_1$ in the survival equation $-\ln S = p_1 n_1(D) + p_2 n_2(D) + p_3 n_3(D)$, where the incidence functions $n_1$, $n_2$, $n_3$ come from track-structure simulations of electron and carbon-ion irradiation on a nuclear model built from Hi-C data, and the probabilities are fitted to published survival data for 20 cell lines. The paper also claims that the incidence of cases 2 and 3 as a function of linear energy transfer (LET) rises to a peak around 100 keV/µm, similar in shape to the radiation quality factor $Q$ used in radiation protection, and that the relative biological effectiveness at 10% survival computed with these probabilities reproduces the measured RBE-LET trend for carbon ions, with a systematic offset the authors attribute to approximations in the simulation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the three per-pattern death probabilities $p_1$, $p_2$, $p_3$ stay constant for a given cell line at every dose and radiation quality; they are fixed using only a photon survival curve plus one carbon-ion curve near 75 keV/µm, so if a break pattern's lethality changes with LET, the predicted RBE-LET curves inherit the error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Low-LET survival curves acquire their 'shoulder' from case-2 and case-3 events produced by multiple particles, and their near-linear high-dose portion from the same cases becoming linear in dose, giving a mechanistic origin for the observed linear-quadratic shape.
  • High-LET relative biological effectiveness becomes predictable from simulated DSB-pattern incidence plus a few cell-specific constants, without fitting $\alpha/\beta$ separately for each ion species.
  • The similarity between case-2 and case-3 incidence curves and the radiation quality factor $Q$ suggests the yield of breaks in interacting TADs could serve as a physical observable for radiation protection weighting.
  • Cell lines with identical total DSB yields but different 3D genome architecture would be predicted to differ in radiosensitivity, a testable distinction from models that count only DSB number.
  • The notion of a fixed-size physical 'domain' or 'giant loop' as the radiation target is replaced by interaction-based units, implying targets with variable size and position.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the ordering holds generally, interventions that rewire 3D genome architecture, such as cohesin or CTCF perturbations, should change radiosensitivity without changing DSB number; this testable consequence is left implicit in the paper.
  • The match with the quality factor hints at a new practical quantity for radiation protection: the yield per dose of DSB pairs in frequently interacting TADs, computable from Hi-C-informed simulations, as a direct stand-in for $Q$.
  • Because fitted $p_3$ exceeds 1.0 for several cell lines, a refinement that weights interacting TAD pairs by their contact frequency rather than treating all pairs equally would likely remove that artifact and sharpen the RBE predictions; that is a natural next step beyond this paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the distribution of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) within the 3D genome, quantified by their placement across topologically associating domains (TADs), determines the probability of radiation-induced cell death. It defines three DSB cases: isolated DSBs (case 1), clustered DSBs within a single TAD (case 2), and DSBs located in TADs that interact frequently (case 3). Using Geant4-DNA track-structure simulations with an IMR90 nuclear model, the authors compute the dose-dependent incidences n1(D), n2(D), and n3(D) for electrons and carbon ions, fit polynomial formulas to these incidences, and then fit per-event death probabilities p1, p2, and p3 to survival data from 20 cell lines using Eq. (4). They report the ordering p3 > p2 > p1 and compare predicted RBE10 versus LET for four cell lines with experimental data, finding rough agreement. They also compare the LET dependence of n2 and n3 with the radiation quality factor Q. The paper concludes that DSB distribution across the 3D genome interaction network, not just DSB number, is a key determinant of radiation-induced cell death.

Significance. If the hypothesis holds, the work provides a mechanistic link between 3D genome architecture and radiobiological effects, reframing the classical 'target' as an interaction-based rather than a fixed-size domain. The paper is original in combining a Hi-C-derived TAD nuclear model with track-structure simulation and in proposing case 3 as a distinct lethal entity. Strengths include the use of an established simulation framework (Geant4-DNA), a publicly available analysis code (GitHub link), explicit fitting to multiple cell lines, and comparison with experimental RBE data. The reported similarity between the LET dependence of n2 and n3 and the quality factor Q is a potentially falsifiable observation. However, the central ordering claim is an inference from a fitted model rather than a direct simulation output, and the paper's own fitted probabilities are not always physically plausible. These issues are load-bearing and require careful revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Materials and Methods, 'Acquisition of Cell Type-Specific Parameters'; Eq. (4) and Table 2] The abstract states that 'Our simulation results indicate that DSBs in TADs with frequent interactions (case 3) are significantly more likely to induce cell death...' but the ordering p3 > p2 > p1 is not an output of the track-structure Monte Carlo simulation alone. The simulation provides only the incidences n1(D), n2(D), and n3(D); the probabilities p1, p2, and p3 are free parameters fitted to survival data using Eq. (4). The claimed ordering is therefore a model-inferred conclusion, conditional on the validity of the Poisson-lethality assumption and on the assumed functional forms of n_i(D). The manuscript should explicitly state this distinction and revise the abstract and conclusion so that the ordering is presented as a fitted inference, not a direct simulation result.
  2. [Table 2, rows 3, 9, 11, 12, 17; Discussion on limitations] Several fitted values of p3 exceed 1, which is impossible for a probability: LC-1 sq has p3 = 1.17 (95% CI 0.94–1.41), and the upper confidence bounds for KNS-89, A-172, ONS-76, and H460 also exceed 1. The authors attribute this to differences in TAD–TAD interactions between the IMR90 nuclear model and the actual cell lines, stating that p_i absorb cell-specific geometry errors. This concession means p3 is not an intrinsic per-event death probability; it is an effective parameter that absorbs model misspecification. The quantitative interpretation of p3 > p2 > p1 as evidence about DSB lethality is therefore weakened, and the fitting should either impose p_i ≤ 1 or reformulate the model so that the fitted parameters remain physically meaningful.
  3. [Materials and Methods, 'Acquisition of Cell Type-Specific Parameters'; Results, 'Correlation between DSB distribution…] The predicted RBE10 versus LET curves in Figure 5 are obtained by taking the p1, p2, p3 fitted from a photon survival curve and a single carbon-ion curve near 75 keV/μm, then applying these values to all other LETs. This assumes that the lethality of a given DSB configuration is independent of radiation quality, which is not tested. If damage complexity or repair pathway choice makes p_i LET-dependent, the RBE predictions are not valid. The systematic discrepancy between the simulated and experimental RBE curves is acknowledged but not analyzed in relation to this assumption. The paper should either provide evidence for LET-independent p_i or temper the predictive claims.
  4. [Table 2; Abstract] The claim that case 3 is 'significantly' more likely to induce cell death than case 2 is not supported by any joint statistical test of the ordering p3 > p2 > p1. The 95% confidence intervals in Table 2 are marginal, and for several cell lines the intervals overlap: for KS-1, p2 is 0.075 (0.060–0.091) and p3 is 0.27 (–0.22–0.77); for V79, p2 is 0.060 (0.052–0.068) and p3 is 0.19 (0.03–0.35). The paper should report a combined significance test across all fitted cell lines or explicitly qualify the significance statement if it is based only on the point estimates.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'significantly more likely' appears in the abstract without reporting any p-value or confidence-level statement; it should be qualified to reflect the overlap of confidence intervals noted in Table 2.
  2. [Eq. (5) and Table 1] The text explains that a3 is zero for electron irradiation and d3 is negligible for carbon ions, but these parameters are not listed in Table 1; please state this explicitly in the table caption or footnotes for clarity.
  3. [Table 2] Row numbering is incorrect: the table lists two entries as '16' (T89G and SF126). The rows should be numbered consecutively.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The caption labels two panels as '(d)' and omits a distinct label for the last panel; the panel letters should be corrected to match the figure panels.
  5. [Materials and Methods, 'Acquisition of Cell Type-Specific Parameters'] The fitting method is described only as 'nonlinear least-squares fitting methods provided by MATLAB'; please specify the algorithm, weighting scheme, and any bounds or constraints used in the fit.
  6. [References] Reference 45 (Szabo et al., 'TADs are 3D structural units...') appears to duplicate Reference 23; please check and renumber.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central claim that p3 > p2 > p1 is a fitted parameter ranking presented in the abstract as a simulation result, though the RBE-versus-LET prediction retains partial independence.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract and Materials and Methods, 'Acquisition of Cell Type-Specific Parameters'; Eq. (4)]
    "Our simulation results indicate that DSBs in TADs with frequent interactions (case 3) are significantly more likely to induce cell death than clustered DSBs within a single TAD (case 2). Moreover, case 2 is significantly more likely to induce cell death than isolated DSBs (case 1). ... the probabilities of cell death for the three cases (p1, p2 and p3) are determined by fitting a photon-irradiation curve and an additional high LET irradiation curve."

    In Eq. (4), -ln S = p1 n1(D) + p2 n2(D) + p3 n3(D). The n_i(D) are Monte Carlo outputs, but p1, p2, and p3 are free parameters fitted to survival data from a photon curve plus one ~75 keV/um carbon curve. The headline ordering p3 > p2 > p1 is therefore just a comparison of the fitted parameter values; the simulation alone cannot rank the lethality of DSB configurations. Presenting this fitted ordering as 'our simulation results indicate' is a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The RBE-versus-LET curves retain partial independence because p_i are held fixed while n_i(LET) changes, so the shape is not fully forced.

full rationale

The track-structure simulation and the derivation of n_i are self-contained: they use Geant4-DNA with a published nuclear model and are benchmarked against DSB yields. The RBE comparison against Furusawa et al. and Bronk et al. data is a genuine out-of-sample check for the LET dependence, because the p_i were fitted using only a photon curve and one high-LET curve; however, the point near 75 keV/um is in-sample. The central claim of the abstract is not a simulation output but a fitted parameter ranking, and the paper's own conclusion acknowledges it as 'results of fitting data from several cell types.' This is partial circularity of the fitted-input-called-prediction kind, not a self-citation chain. Score 6 reflects that the headline claim reduces to a fit while the LET-shape prediction remains partly independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces three per-case lethality parameters p1, p2, p3 fitted to survival data, a DNA-hit fraction pDNA, and a set of polynomial coefficients fitted to Monte Carlo output. These parameters absorb much of the model's predictive content, while the conceptual 'target' is reinterpreted as TAD interaction topology without postulating new physical entities.

free parameters (5)
  • p1 = 0.0003 to 0.025 across 20 cell lines (Table 2)
    Fitted probability of cell death per isolated DSB (case 1), determined by nonlinear least squares against photon and one high-LET survival curve per cell line.
  • p2 = 0.020 to 0.141 (Table 2)
    Fitted probability of cell death per clustered DSB within one TAD (case 2).
  • p3 = 0.19 to 1.17 (some values exceed 1, Table 2)
    Fitted probability of cell death for DSBs in frequently interacting TADs (case 3). Values above 1 are unphysical and indicate model misspecification.
  • pDNA = 0.141 (sensitivity runs at 0.17 and 0.21)
    Fraction of energy deposition events in TAD spheres that hit DNA. Adopted from Ingram et al. (ref 33); strongly affects DSB yield and case incidences.
  • Polynomial coefficients for n1(D), n2(D), n3(D) = kDSB, a1, b1, a2,s, b2,s, b2,m, c2,m, a3, b3, c3, d3 as in Table 1
    Coefficients fit to Monte Carlo simulation outputs for the incidence of each case versus dose; they are the backbone of Eq 4 and therefore of the survival model.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The number of lethal events follows a Poisson distribution, as in classical target theory.
    Stated in Materials and Methods: 'the number of lethal events is approximately Poisson-distributed', leading to S = exp[-n(D)].
  • domain assumption TAD spheres from the G-NOME IMR90 nuclear model faithfully represent the 3D genome organization that governs DSB interaction and misrepair.
    Used throughout; DSBs are located in TAD spheres and the Chrom3D interaction network defines case 3.
  • domain assumption p1, p2, p3 are constant per cell line across all LETs and doses.
    The RBE-LET prediction (Figure 5) assumes the fitted lethalities do not change with radiation quality.
  • domain assumption The IMR90 TAD interaction network applies to all 20 cell lines in the fitting set.
    The authors acknowledge TAD-TAD interactions differ among cell types, yet a single IMR90-derived network is used for V79, HSG, T1, and all human lines.
  • domain assumption Every DSB pattern is assigned to exactly one of the three cases with no ambiguity.
    A pattern can satisfy both case-2 and case-3 criteria; the counting procedure for such overlaps is not specified in the methods.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correlation Between DNA Double-Strand Break Distribution in 3D Genome and Radiation-Induced Cell Death." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/73U4ZOM7

@misc{pith2026250107579,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correlation Between DNA Double-Strand Break Distribution in 3D Genome and Radiation-Induced Cell Death},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/73U4ZOM7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07579}
}
read the original abstract

The target theory is the most classical hypothesis explaining radiation-induced cell death, the physical or biological nature of the "target" remains ambiguous. This study hypothesizes that the distribution of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) within the 3D genome is a pivotal factor affecting the probability of radiation-induced cell death. We propose that clustered DSBs in DNA segments with high interaction frequencies are more susceptible to leading to cell death than isolated DSBs. Topologically associating domains (TAD) can be regarded as the reference unit for evaluating the impact of DSB clustering in the 3D genome. To quantify this correlation between the DSB distribution in 3D genome and radiation-induced effect, we developed a simplified model considering the DSB distribution across TADs. Utilizing track-structure Monte Carlo codes to simulate the electron and carbon ion irradiation, we calculated the incidence of each case across a variety of radiation doses and LETs. Our simulation results indicate that DSBs in TADs with frequent interactions (case 3) are significantly more likely to induce cell death than clustered DSBs within a single TAD (case 2). Moreover, case 2 is significantly more likely to induce cell death than isolated DSBs (case 1). The curves of the incidence of case 2 and case 3 versus LETs have a similar shape to the radiation quality factor used in radiation protection. This indicates that these two cases are also associated with the stochastic effects induced by high LET irradiation. Our study underscores the significance of the 3D genome structure in the fundamental mechanisms of radiobiological effects. The hypothesis in our research offers novel perspectives on the mechanisms that regulate radiobiological effects. Moreover, it serves as a valuable reference for establishing mechanistic models that can predict cell survival under different doses and LETs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07579 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram of our hypothesis Quantifying the hypothesis through a mathematical model To quantitatively assess our hypothesis, we have developed a simplified mathematical model. Establishing a quantitative relationship between interaction frequency and the probability of cell death is quite challenging. To address this challenge, we have categorized the distribution of DSBs in terms of TADs, since TADs are regarded as t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Incidence of events induced by electron and 75 keV/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Simulation results of C-12 ions. (a) yield of DSB; (b) first-order factor of case 1; (c) first-order factor of case 2 induced by one particle; (d) incidence of case 2 induced by multiple particles and incidence of case 3 at 1 and 2 Gy. (a) (b) (c) (d) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Correlation between the Distribution of DSBs in the 3D genome and radiation quality. The ratio of the first-order factor of carbon ion irradiation to that of electron irradiation (a2,s(carbon)/a2,s(electron)) is depicted on the left axis and the first-order factor of c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ACTION OF X -RAYS ON MAMMALIAN CELLS

    Puck TT, Marcus PI. ACTION OF X -RAYS ON MAMMALIAN CELLS. Journal of Experimental Medicine. 1956;103(5):653–66

    work page 1956

  2. [2]

    X -Ray Damage and Recovery in Mammalian Cells in Culture

    Elkind MM, Sutton H. X -Ray Damage and Recovery in Mammalian Cells in Culture. Nature. 1959;184(4695):1293–5

    work page 1959

  3. [3]

    How does radiation kill cells? Current Opinion in Chemical Biology

    Cohen–Jonathan E, Bernhard EJ, McKenna WG. How does radiation kill cells? Current Opinion in Chemical Biology. 1999;3(1):77–83

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    Development of a coupled simulation toolkit for computational radiation biology based on Geant4 and CompuCell3D

    Liu R, Higley KA, Swat MH, Chaplain MAJ, Powathil GG, Glazier JA. Development of a coupled simulation toolkit for computational radiation biology based on Geant4 and CompuCell3D. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(4):045026

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Radiobiology for the radiologist

    Hall EJ, Giaccia AJ. Radiobiology for the radiologist . 8th ed. Lippincottt Williams & Wilkins; 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    ‘Survival’: a simulation toolkit introducing a Correlation between Damage in 3D Genome and Cell Death 17 modular approach for radiobiological evaluations in ion beam therapy

    Manganaro L, Russo G, Bourhaleb F, et al. ‘Survival’: a simulation toolkit introducing a Correlation between Damage in 3D Genome and Cell Death 17 modular approach for radiobiological evaluations in ion beam therapy. Phys Med Biol . 2018;63(8):08NT01

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Discussions on target theory: past and present

    Nomiya T. Discussions on target theory: past and present. Journal of Radiation Research . 2013;54(6):1161–3

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    The linear quadratic model: usage, interpretation and challenges

    McMahon SJ. The linear quadratic model: usage, interpretation and challenges. Phys Med Biol. 2018;64(1):01TR01

    work page 2018

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    A molecular theory of cell survival

    Chadwick KH, Leenhouts HP. A molecular theory of cell survival. Phys Med Biol . 1973;18(1):78

    1973

  2. [10]

    The probabilities of one - and multi -track events for modeling radiation-induced cell kill

    Schneider U, Vasi F, Besserer J. The probabilities of one - and multi -track events for modeling radiation-induced cell kill. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2017;56(3):249–54

    2017

  3. [11]

    A quantitative model of the major pathways for radiation -induced DNA double -strand break repair

    Belov OV , Krasavin EA, Lyashko MS, Batmunkh M, Sweilam NH. A quantitative model of the major pathways for radiation -induced DNA double -strand break repair. J Theor Biol . 2015;366:115–30

    2015

  4. [12]

    Track structures, DNA targets and radiation effects in the biophysical Monte Carlo simulation code PARTRAC

    Friedland W, Dingfelder M, Kundrat P, Jacob P. Track structures, DNA targets and radiation effects in the biophysical Monte Carlo simulation code PARTRAC. Mutat Res. 2011;711(1– 2):28–40

    2011

  5. [13]

    Monte Carlo Simulation of the Oxygen Effect in DNA Damage Induction by Ionizing Radiation

    Forster JC, Douglass MJJ, Phillips WM, Bezak E. Monte Carlo Simulation of the Oxygen Effect in DNA Damage Induction by Ionizing Radiation. Radiat Res. 2018;190(3):248–61

    2018

  6. [14]

    Dependence of the Yield of DNA Double-Strand Breaks in Chinese Hamster V79-4 Cells on the Photon Energy of Ultrasoft X Rays

    de Lara CM, Hill MA, Jenner TJ, Papworth D, Neill PO. Dependence of the Yield of DNA Double-Strand Breaks in Chinese Hamster V79-4 Cells on the Photon Energy of Ultrasoft X Rays. Radiation Research. 2001;155(3):440–8

    2001

  7. [15]

    Robustness of carbon -ion radiotherapy against DNA damage repair associated radiosensitivity variation based on a biophysical model

    Liew H, Tessonnier T, Mein S, et al. Robustness of carbon -ion radiotherapy against DNA damage repair associated radiosensitivity variation based on a biophysical model. Medical Physics. 2024;51(5):3782–95

    2024

  8. [16]

    Calculation of the biological effects of ion beams based on the microscopic spatial damage distribution pattern

    Friedrich T, Scholz U, Elsasser T, Durante M, Scholz M. Calculation of the biological effects of ion beams based on the microscopic spatial damage distribution pattern. Int J Radiat Biol. 2012;88(1–2):103–7

    2012

  9. [17]

    Combined DNA Damage Repair Interference and Ion Beam Therapy: Development, Benchmark, and Clinical Implications of a Mechanistic Biological Model

    Liew H, Meister S, Mein S, et al. Combined DNA Damage Repair Interference and Ion Beam Therapy: Development, Benchmark, and Clinical Implications of a Mechanistic Biological Model. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics . 2022;112(3):802–17

    2022

  10. [18]

    A microdosimetric -kinetic model of cell death from exposure to ionizing radiation of any LET, with experimental and clinical applications

    Hawkins RB. A microdosimetric -kinetic model of cell death from exposure to ionizing radiation of any LET, with experimental and clinical applications. International Journal of Radiation Biology. 1996;69(6):739–55

    1996

  11. [19]

    A modified microdosimetric kinetic model for relative biological effectiveness calculation

    Chen Y , Li J, Li C, Qiu R, Wu Z. A modified microdosimetric kinetic model for relative biological effectiveness calculation. Phys Med Biol. 2017;63(1):015008

    2017

  12. [20]

    Cluster effects within the local effect model

    Elsasser T, Scholz M. Cluster effects within the local effect model. Radiat Res . 2007;167(3):319–29

    2007

  13. [21]

    Bordieri G, Missiaggia M, Cartechini G, et al. Validation of the generalized stochastic microdosimetric model (GSM^2) over a broad range of LET and particle beam type: a unique model for accurate description of (therapy relevant) radiation qualities. Phys Med Biol. 2024;70(1):015005

    2024

  14. [22]

    Chrom3D: three -dimensional genome modeling from Hi-C and nuclear lamin-genome contacts

    Paulsen J, Sekelja M, Oldenburg AR, et al. Chrom3D: three -dimensional genome modeling from Hi-C and nuclear lamin-genome contacts. Genome Biology. 2017;18(1):21. Correlation between Damage in 3D Genome and Cell Death 18

    2017

  15. [23]

    TADs are 3D structural units of higher -order chromosome organization in Drosophila

    Szabo Q, Jost D, Chang J -M, et al. TADs are 3D structural units of higher -order chromosome organization in Drosophila. Science Advances. 2018;4(2):eaar8082

    2018

  16. [24]

    Principles of 3D compartmentalization of the human genome

    Nichols MH, Corces VG. Principles of 3D compartmentalization of the human genome. Cell Rep. 2021;35(13):109330

    2021

  17. [25]

    Organizational principles of 3D genome architecture

    Rowley MJ, Corces VG. Organizational principles of 3D genome architecture. Nat Rev Genet. 2018;19(12):789–800

    2018

  18. [26]

    How Hi -C ignited the era of 3D genome biology

    Bienko M. How Hi -C ignited the era of 3D genome biology. Nat Rev Genet . 2023;24(7):418–418

    2023

  19. [27]

    Integrating chromosome conformation and DNA repair in a computational framework to assess cell radiosensitivity*

    Andriotty M, Wang C -KC, Kapadia A, McCord RP, Agasthya G. Integrating chromosome conformation and DNA repair in a computational framework to assess cell radiosensitivity*. Phys Med Biol. 2024;69(24):245017

    2024

  20. [28]

    Loop extrusion as a mechanism for formation of DNA damage repair foci

    Arnould C, Rocher V , Finoux A-L, et al. Loop extrusion as a mechanism for formation of DNA damage repair foci. Nature. 2021;590(7847):660–5

    2021

  21. [29]

    TADs and Their Borders: Free Movement or Building a Wall? J Mol Biol

    Chang LH, Ghosh S, Noordermeer D. TADs and Their Borders: Free Movement or Building a Wall? J Mol Biol. 2020;432(3):643–52

    2020

  22. [30]

    Principles of genome folding into topologically associating domains

    Szabo Q, Bantignies F, Cavalli G. Principles of genome folding into topologically associating domains. Science Advances. 2019;5(4):eaaw1668

    2019

  23. [31]

    Track structure modeling in liquid water: A review of the Geant4 -DNA very low energy extension of the Geant4 Monte Carlo simulation toolkit

    Bernal MA, Bordage MC, Brown JMC, et al. Track structure modeling in liquid water: A review of the Geant4 -DNA very low energy extension of the Geant4 Monte Carlo simulation toolkit. Physica Medica. 2015;31(8):861–74

    2015

  24. [32]

    DNA Strand Breaks Induced by Electrons Simulated with Nanodosimetry Monte Carlo Simulation Code: Nasic

    Li JL, Li CY , Qiu R, et al. DNA Strand Breaks Induced by Electrons Simulated with Nanodosimetry Monte Carlo Simulation Code: Nasic. Radiat Prot Dosim . 2015;166(1 – 4):38–43

    2015

  25. [33]

    Hi -C implementation of genome structure for in silico models of radiation -induced DNA damage

    Ingram SP, Henthorn NT, Warmenhoven JW, et al. Hi -C implementation of genome structure for in silico models of radiation -induced DNA damage. PLOS Computational Biology. 2020;16(12):e1008476

    2020

  26. [34]

    Computational 3D genome modeling using Chrom3D

    Paulsen J, Liyakat Ali TM, Collas P. Computational 3D genome modeling using Chrom3D. Nat Protoc. 2018;13(5):1137–52

    2018

  27. [35]

    Stochastic simulation of DNA double -strand break repair by non -homologous end joining based on track structure calculations

    Friedland W, Jacob P, Kundrat P. Stochastic simulation of DNA double -strand break repair by non -homologous end joining based on track structure calculations. Radiat Res . 2010;173(5):677–88

    2010

  28. [36]

    Biophysical Simulation Tool Partrac: Modelling Proton Beams at Therapy -Relevant Energies

    Friedland W, Kundrat P, Becker J, Eidemuller M. Biophysical Simulation Tool Partrac: Modelling Proton Beams at Therapy -Relevant Energies. Radiat Prot Dosimetry . 2019;186(2–3):172–5

    2019

  29. [37]

    Inactivation of Aerobic and Hypoxic Cells from Three Different Cell Lines by Accelerated 3He -, 12C - and 20Ne -Ion Beams

    Furusawa Y , Fukutsu K, Aoki M, et al. Inactivation of Aerobic and Hypoxic Cells from Three Different Cell Lines by Accelerated 3He -, 12C - and 20Ne -Ion Beams. Radiation Research. 2000;154(5):485–96

    2000

  30. [38]

    Relative biological effectiveness for cell-killing effect on various human cell lines irradiated with heavy -ion medical accelerator in Chiba (HIMAC) carbon-ion beams

    Suzuki M, Kase Y , Yamaguchi H, Kanai T, Ando K. Relative biological effectiveness for cell-killing effect on various human cell lines irradiated with heavy -ion medical accelerator in Chiba (HIMAC) carbon-ion beams. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48(1):241–50

    2000

  31. [39]

    Mapping the Relative Biological Effectiveness of Proton, Helium and Carbon Ions with High-Throughput Techniques

    Bronk L, Guan F, Patel D, et al. Mapping the Relative Biological Effectiveness of Proton, Helium and Carbon Ions with High-Throughput Techniques. Cancers. 2020;12(12):3658

    2020

  32. [40]

    Oxygen Effect, Relative Biological Effectiveness, and Linear Energy Transfer

    Chang DS, Lasley FD, Das IJ, Mendonca MS, Dynlacht JR. Oxygen Effect, Relative Biological Effectiveness, and Linear Energy Transfer. In: Chang DS, Lasley FD, Das IJ, Correlation between Damage in 3D Genome and Cell Death 19 Mendonca MS, Dynlacht JR, editors. Basic Radiotherapy...

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    Relative biological effectiveness (RBE), quality factor Q, and radiation weighting factor wR): ICRP Publication 92

    Valentin J. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE), quality factor Q, and radiation weighting factor wR): ICRP Publication 92. Ann ICRP. 2003;33(4):1–121

    2003

  34. [42]

    Quality factors for space radiation: A new approach

    Borak TB, Heilbronn LH, Townsend LW, McBeth RA, de Wet W. Quality factors for space radiation: A new approach. Life Sciences in Space Research. 2014;1:96–102

    2014

  35. [43]

    DNA break clustering as a predictor of cell death across various radiation qualities: influence of cell size, cell asymmetry, and beam orientation

    Poignant F, Pariset E, Plante I, et al. DNA break clustering as a predictor of cell death across various radiation qualities: influence of cell size, cell asymmetry, and beam orientation. Integrative Biology. 2024;16:zyae015

    2024

  36. [44]

    Combinatorial DNA Damage Pairing Model Based on X -Ray-Induced Foci Predicts the Dose and LET Dependence of Cell Death in Human Breast Cells

    Vadhavkar N, Pham C, Georgescu W, et al. Combinatorial DNA Damage Pairing Model Based on X -Ray-Induced Foci Predicts the Dose and LET Dependence of Cell Death in Human Breast Cells. rare. 2014;182(3):273–81

    2014

  37. [45]

    TADs are 3D structural units of higher -order chromosome organization in Drosophila

    Szabo Q, Jost D, Chang J -M, et al. TADs are 3D structural units of higher -order chromosome organization in Drosophila. Science Advances. 2018;4(2):eaar8082. Supplementary Material Figure S1. Histogram of radius of TADs Figure S2. Histogram of DNA content of TADs 0 100 200 30...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.