Next Article in Journal
Molecular Variation and Genomic Function of Citrus Vein Enation Virus
Next Article in Special Issue
Functionalized Magnetite Nanoparticles: Characterization, Bioeffects, and Role of Reactive Oxygen Species in Unicellular and Enzymatic Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Antibiotic Knockdown of Gut Bacteria Sex-Dependently Enhances Intravenous Fentanyl Self-Administration in Adult Sprague Dawley Rats
Previous Article in Special Issue
Low-Dose-Rate Radiation-Induced Secretion of TGF-β3 Together with an Activator in Small Extracellular Vesicles Modifies Low-Dose Hyper-Radiosensitivity through ALK1 Binding
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 24
Issue 1
10.3390/ijms24010410
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Marine Bacteria under Low-Intensity Radioactive Exposure: Model Experiments

by
Olga V. Kolesnik
1,2,
Tatiana V. Rozhko
3 and
Nadezhda S. Kudryasheva
1,2,*
1
Institute of Biophysics SB RAS, Federal Research Center ‘Krasnoyarsk Science Center SB RAS’, 660036 Krasnoyarsk, Russia
2
Biophysics Department, Siberian Federal University, 660041 Krasnoyarsk, Russia
3
FSBEI HE V.F. Voino-Yasenetsky KrasSMU MOH, 660022 Krasnoyarsk, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(1), 410; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24010410
Submission received: 4 November 2022 / Revised: 15 December 2022 / Accepted: 19 December 2022 / Published: 27 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecular Mechanisms of Responses to Low-Intensity Exposures 2.0)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Radioactive contaminants create problems all over world, involving marine ecosystems, with their ecological importance increasing in the future. The review focuses on bioeffects of a series of alpha and beta emitting radioisotopes (americium-241, uranium-(235 + 238), thorium-232, and tritium) and gamma radiation. Low-intensity exposures are under special consideration. Great attention has been paid to luminous marine bacteria as representatives of marine microorganisms and a conventional bioassay system. This bioassay uses bacterial bioluminescence intensity as the main testing physiological parameter; currently, it is widely applied due to its simplicity and sensitivity. Dependences of the bacterial luminescence response on the exposure time and irradiation intensity were reviewed, and applicability of hormetic or threshold models was discussed. A number of aspects of molecular intracellular processes under exposure to low-intensity radiation were analyzed: (a) changes in the rates of enzymatic processes in bacteria with the bioluminescent system of coupled enzymatic reactions of NADH:FMN-oxidoreductase and bacterial luciferase taken as an example; (b) consumption of an intracellular reducer, NADH; (c) active role of reactive oxygen species; (d) repairing of the DNA damage. The results presented confirm the function of humic substances as natural radioprotectors.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, low-intensity radioactive contaminants create problems all over the world. A tentative limit of low-dose effects for higher organisms is supposed to be 0.1 Gy, according to ICRP Publication 99 [1]. Generally, specialists in radiotoxicology suggest that this border separates low-dose and toxic radiation effects; the latter means the suppression of physiological functions of organisms under radioactive exposure. However, the data accumulated show that this border can change under varied environmental conditions, as well as the type and the state of an organism [2,3].
The biological effects of low-intensity radiation are currently of particular interest due to the permanent expansion of contaminated areas. Radioactive decay products can affect the associated chemical and biological processes in natural ecosystems, accompanied by a natural change in the balance of the ecosystem as a whole. To identify molecular mechanisms of the low-dose radiation bioeffects, proper bioindicators should be chosen and adapted.
Molecular mechanisms of biological responses to low-dose radiation form a basis for predicting responses of organisms to low-intensity radiation due to discharges of nuclear plants, underground mining, or nuclear accidents. Thus, these mechanisms are of practical interest.
Unicellular organisms are proper tools for studying biological responses in complex media, being the initial link of food chains in aquatic ecosystems, and hence, defining the state of the ecosystem as a whole [4,5]. Physiological parameters of unicellular organisms can serve as indicators of the state of the ecosystem. Therefore, microorganisms can be used to monitor environmental toxicity, including radiotoxicity [6]. Radiation effects have only been investigated in a small subset of microbial species [7,8], and studies involving other species can contribute to understanding the biological effects of radiation.
Bioassays based on luminous marine bacteria are suitable candidates for monitoring environmental toxicity. These bioassays use bacterial luminescence as a physiological function in test procedures and can be used to study both chronic and acute radioactive exposures. Due to high sensitivity to toxic compounds, luminous marine bacteria have been used as a toxicity biotest for more than fifty years [6,9,10,11,12]. Bioluminescence assays are similar to spectrophotometric tests in their simplicity and high rate of test procedures.
The bacterial bioluminescent enzyme system was suggested for the first time in 1990 [13]. This is another type of bioluminescent assay. Advantages of the enzymatic assay include a possibility to change sensitivity to toxicants by varying the component concentration and composition as well as by constructing coupled polyenzymatic systems [14,15,16,17]. Technological applications of the bioluminescent enzymatic system were reviewed in [18,19].
The conventional bioluminescent enzymatic assay is based on the coupled bacterial bioluminescent enzyme system; it involves two enzymatic reactions. The first one, catalyzed by NADH:FMN-oxidoreductase, is the reduction of flavin mononucleotide (FMN) by nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH):
F M N + N A D H → N A D H : F M N − o x i d o r e d u c t a s e F M N · H − + N A D H +
In the second reaction, catalyzed by bacterial luciferase, the reduced flavin (ionized form) and long-chain aldehyde are oxidized by molecular oxygen, to yield the corresponding acid, H2O, FMN, and a quantum of light (λmax about 500 nm):
F M N · H − + R C H O + O 2 → l u c i f e r a s e F M N + R C O O − + H 2 O + h v
Interference with any part of the bacterial cell metabolism that affects the release of components of the bacterial bioluminescence will be indicated by a decrease in the light emission. Based on the extensive investigation of effects of model toxic exogenous compounds, a classification of the effects on the bioluminescent enzymatic assay system was suggested [20] and developed. The effects of different groups of exogenous compounds, i.e., organic dyes [21,22,23], oxidizers [24,25,26], halogen-substituted molecules [27,28,29], and salts of stable and radioactive metals [16,29,30,31,32,33,34,35], were discussed according to the classification suggested.
The main advantage of the luminescence bioassays is a high rate of registration of the physiological function, luminescence intensity. This advantage provides a possibility to conduct a lot of experiments under comparable conditions and leads to adequate statistical processing. This is highly important for biological assays that are usually characterized by lower reproducibility as compared to chemical assays or radiometric measurements. This feature is particularly important in toxicological studies of low-dose effects, which are usually noisy and stochastic.
It is known that biological responses to low-dose radiation may change upon variations in the molecular surrounding [2,3]. The addition of organic poly-functional molecules can change radical and ionic states of aqueous solutions of alpha- and beta-emitting radionuclides, thus changing the environment of water inhabitants, and therefore, their responses in radionuclide solutions. Aquatic biota might be sensitive to the presence of humic substances (HS), products of oxidative decomposition of organic matter in water body sediments, and natural complexing and redox agents, which play an important role as natural toxicity attenuators [36,37,38,39,40]. Phenolic and other active groups in HS result in their capability of mitigating toxic impacts of oxidizers of both organic and inorganic types [30,41,42], similarly to other natural phenolic compounds [43,44]. The biological activity of HS is currently discussed intensively [6,45,46,47,48,49,50].
This review is aimed at considering the bioeffects of radionuclides of alpha and beta types, such as thorium-232, americium-241, and uranium-(235 + 238), tritium, as well as gamma-irradiation, under the conditions of low-intensity irradiation. Luminous marine bacteria are chosen as an example of the model unicellular organism. A number of types of molecular mechanisms of responses to low-dose exposures are under discussion. Special attention is paid to the radioprotective effects of humic substances, natural attenuators of radiotoxicity, in the model solutions of radionuclides.

2. Low-Dose Radiation Effects on Luminous Marine Bacteria

Studies of the biological effects of low-dose exposures have been conducted since the 1960s [51]. The achievements of Calabrese (Laboratory of Toxicology, University of Massachusetts Settlement, USA) are widely known. [52,53]. The works of E.B. Burlakova’s group (Emanuel Institute of Biochemical Physics, Russia) are considered to be classical in the study of low-intensity exposures [54]. Nonlinear dose-effect relationships, commonly referred to as ‘hormesis’, have been described and discussed for low-dose exposure. This term was introduced in 1943 [55]. In general, this term refers to a positive biological response to low-dose exposure to toxicants or other stress-factors, including ionizing radiation. It is assumed that the phenomenon of hormesis is characteristic of all biological systems, regardless of the level of biological organization (cell, organ, and organism) and methods of registration. The first book on radiation hormesis was written by Luckey [56]. The intensity of the study of radiobiological low-dose effects has been increasing since the 1970s [54,57,58,59,60], including studies on microorganisms [61,62,63,64]. Thus far, two models have been investigated to describe the mechanism of radiation hormesis: this phenomenon is associated with either DNA damage or membrane processes [54,59,61,65,66,67,68,69].
In general, there exist three models of biological response to low-dose exposure. The first model, hormesis, is marked with the number 1 in Figure 1. Hormesis is the most complex dependence, and it is supposed to be the basic model; two other dependences, threshold (2), and linear no-threshold models, LNT (3), can be considered as particular cases of hormesis [70,71].
An integral element of the LNT hypothesis is the assumption that the nature of the biological response to radiation damage is linear, regardless of the dose. However, exposure of cells or organisms to low dose/dose-rate ionizing radiation elicits an adaptive response, resulting in the reduction of deleterious effects of the subsequent or previous damage. This resistance induction is a part of a general cellular response to stress that emerged in early evolution and has subsequently been observed in all organisms. The central hallmark of this induced resistance in prokaryotes is the ability to effectively repair DNA double-strand breaks, and this ability has been retained to a great extent through the evolution in cells of eukaryotes—unicellular eukaryotes, simple eukaryotes, insects, plants, amphibians, and mammals.
Great experience accumulated in the study of mechanisms of exogenous compounds on luminescent bacteria and their enzymatic reactions makes it possible to use these systems to study low-intensity exposure. The reviews by Girotti and Roda, University of Bologna, Italy, are considered to be classical [9,10,73]. In addition, in Russia marine bacteria are also used for this purpose, for example, at the Biology Department of Moscow State University [74], etc. The Gu group (National Environmental Biotechnology Research Laboratory, Kwangju, South Korea) was the first to apply bioluminescence to monitor the bioeffects of radiation (using gamma radiation as an example) [75]. In addition to the abovementioned groups, there are other studies which apply luminescent bacteria for monitoring the radiation bioeffects [6,72,76,77,78]. Unicellular bacterial responses form the basis for understanding the nature of low-dose effects on multicellular organisms.
Rozhko and coworkers [34], for the first time, applied luminous marine bacteria to monitor the low-dose effects of radionuclides; an alpha-emitting radioisotope americium-241 was chosen as an example in this study. Later, we explored the low-dose effects of alpha- (americium-241, uranium-(235 + 238); thorium-232) and beta-emitting radioisotopes (tritium) [31,78,79,80] as well as gamma-radiation [81]. The bacterial bioluminescence response to the radionuclides was demonstrated to include the following stages: (1) threshold, (2) activation, and (3) inhibition; and the combination of the stages can be different.
The activation of bacterial bioluminescence was observed in solutions of americium-241 (Figure 2), a radionuclide with high radioactive decay energy [6,34,80]. The bioluminescence kinetic curves in the solutions of americium-241 were fitted with the typical hormesis model, involving the activation stage.
It should be noted that the study of the bioeffects of americium-241 is highly valuable now. Americium-241 is a product of 241Pu radioactive decay; it is produced in nuclear power plants during the activation of 239Pu and 240Pu by neutrons, which is followed by the beta decay of 241Pu [82]. The environmental risk of contamination with americium-241 is due to the time-dependent increase of its concentration in the future, taking into account the long half-life of americium-241 (432 years). This problem will remain acute for many decades and centuries.
Americium-241 is known to be accumulated in the environment due to its ability to be bound by organic matter and to be concentrated on the cell surfaces as well as to penetrate through cellular membranes by means of siderophores—specific cellular proteins [83]. For example, the accumulation of americium-241 by the biomass of aquatic plants was found in the Chernobyl zone contaminated with radioactive fallout [84]. The accumulation of americium-241 by sediments, aquatic plants, and fish in the Siberian river Yenisei (Siberia, Russia) was under study in [85,86,87].
Alpha-emitting radionuclides thorium (Th) and uranium (U) are of particular interest, being the most abundant radioactive elements in natural ecosystems and important sources of nuclear energy [88,89,90,91]; there exist large areas contaminated with these radionuclides. They are longest-lived isotopes: Th-232 has a half-life of 14 × 109 years; while U-235 and U-238 have half-lives of 7.04 × 108 and 4.5 × 109 years, respectively. Currently, the interest to thorium as an alternative source of nuclear energy is increasing, which can lead to an acceleration of its accumulation in the environment and expansion of areas with radioactive contamination [92,93].
However, the low-dose effects of thorium and uranium radioisotopes on organisms have not been thoroughly studied yet [94].
Rozhko and coworkers compared the effects of alpha-emitting radionuclides of different specific radioactivity, americium-241 and uranium-(235 + 238) on bacterial bioluminescence [95]. It was found that uranium-(235 + 238), a radionuclide with a low specific radioactivity, inhibited bacterial bioluminescence at concentrations >10−5 M (>30 Bq/L); activation of bioluminescence was not observed. The uranium effect was attributed to the chemical component of its impact rather than to the radioactive one.
The study by Kolesnik et al. [96] was aimed at the bioeffect of the other low-active alpha-emitting radionuclide, thorium-232; intact bacteria and enzymatic reactions were applied as bioassays. Thorium nitrate, Th(NO3)4•4H2O, was used as a source of radiation; the dose accumulated in the bacterial culture did not exceed 0.1 Gy, which is below the conventional low-dose limit. Moderate bioluminescence activation (<50%) was found in the solutions of thorium-232. The low-concentration (10−11–10−6 M) activation of the bacterial bioluminescence is evident from Figure 3 (Irel > 1, red line). The bioluminescence inhibition (Irel < 1) at higher concentrations of thorium solutions (10−6–10−3 M) was attributed to pH shifts in bacterial suspensions rather than to the thorium radioactivity.
In a number of studies, we chose tritium as a model beta type radionuclide [79,97]. The choice of tritium was justified by its environmental occurrence due to its natural and anthropogenic origin: on the one hand, tritium is generated in the atmospheric top layers by space irradiation; on the other hand, it is a by-product of numerous nuclear industry processes. A local increase in the tritium content occurs around nuclear power plants, and it can rise dramatically after nuclear accidents. In terms of the chemical properties, tritium is similar to the stable hydrogen isotope and can replace it in organic compounds. Despite the low particle energy, tritium creates a significant density of ionization in solutions and tissues. As a result, the processes of charge transfer are intensified in the organisms, and the local impact of tritium decay can be quite strong.
The total energy of tritium beta-decay is low (18.6 keV), and the average energy of electrons is also low (5.7 keV). This is a reason for considering tritium as one of the less hazardous radioisotopes. The products of the tritium decay include an electron (a beta particle) and an ionized isotope of helium ( H 2 3 e + ):
H 1 3 →   β −   H 2 3 e + + e − + ν ˜
The products of the tritium radioactive decay are capable of triggering electron/charge transfer processes in biochemical reactions and they can affect the rates of cellular processes. The previous studies under chronic low-dose exposure (<0.03 Gy) [6,31,78,98] demonstrated both the inhibition and activation effects of tritium on luminous marine bacteria (Figure 4A), and the absence of any monotonic dependences of bioluminescence responses on the tritium concentration. These regularities were found in a wide range of tritium activity concentrations: from 0.0001 to 200 MBq/L (Figure 4B). This result can be explained in terms of the adaptation ability of the bacterial cells to the low-dose radiation, with the hormesis model involved. Additionally, Rozhko et al., 2019 showed that the bioluminescence intensity was the same for three activity concentrations of tritium (0.03 MBq/L; 4 MBq/L; 500 MBq/L) during the entire observation time (52 h) [79]. In this experiment, tritium increased the bioluminescence intensity by approximately three times as compared to the control.
An increase in the bacterial luminescence intensity in the presence of tritiated water, HTO, was demonstrated in a series of experiments. The bi-phasic dependence (activation + inhibition) was found in [31,80], while the mono-phasic dependence (activation only) was shown in [79,99,100].
Hence, the low-dose effects of tritium on the cellular level were shown to correspond to the model of ‘radiation hormesis’, including as they do the stages of activation and inhibition of physiological processes [6,29,78,97,98]. This fact demonstrates that the balance of aquatic biota in natural ecosystems under exposure to tritium can be shifted both to the activation and inhibition of the vital function of aquatic microorganisms, with further misbalance in food chains.
Radiobiological effects of gamma irradiation are of high concern for researchers now, as a large number of people are exposed to radiation from various man-made and natural sources, particularly in the nuclear energy industry, in the course of conventional radiotherapy and diagnostic processes, including unintentional exposure to radiation [101,102]. Currently, gamma irradiation is one of the most promising and widely applied methods for disinfection of food products and plant materials [102].
Nevertheless, the effects of low-dose gamma-irradiation on luminous marine bacteria, a widely used bioassay system, have not been sufficiently explored. The study by Kudryasheva et al., 2017 [81] is an example of research in this field. The authors demonstrated the independence of the bacterial response on the irradiation intensity at the low-dose gamma irradiation (Figure 5), similar to the low-dose effect of tritium mentioned before. Figure 5 demonstrates the bacterial bioluminescence intensities at four different irradiation dose rates, with almost identical responses: no bioluminescence activation was found, with the kinetic curves corresponding to the ‘threshold’ model.
The experiments with low-dose gamma irradiation revealed another point: a lower temperature showed a lower sensitivity of the bacterial cells: unlike at 20 °C, the bioluminescence inhibition was not observed at 10 °C and 5 °C [81]. This result was explained by the temperature-dependent deceleration of metabolic processes in bacteria, including radiation-induced ones.
Hence, the independence of the bacterial bioluminescence response on the radiation intensity (the activity concentration or dose rate for alpha/beta radionuclides or gamma radiation, respectively) was experimentally demonstrated under the low dose exposures; however, the time dependence was evident, corresponding to the hormesis model (for the alpha/beta radionuclides americium-241/tritium) or to the threshold model (for gamma radiation). Therefore, one can suppose that the ‘cellular adaptive response’ can be related to both regularities: (1) independence of responses on the irradiation intensities and (2) non-linear time-dependent response of the hormesis/threshold type.
A question arises whether these two peculiarities are inherent to enzymatic reactions, i.e., biological systems of a lower level of organization. This question is concerned with molecular mechanisms, to be discussed in the next section.

3. Mechanisms of Low-Dose Effects on Bacterial Cells

Mechanisms of low-dose responses of bacteria can be considered at the biochemical, chemical, and physico-chemical levels. In this section, we review the radiation effects on enzymatic reactions, chemical low-molecular components of these reactions, and content of reactive oxygen species, respectively. Additionally, we briefly consider a possible role of DNA damage, which has poorly been considered for luminous bacteria.

3.1. Changes in the Rates of Intracellular Enzymatic Processes under Exposure to Radionuclides

The effects of alpha- and beta-emitting radionuclides (americium-241 and tritium) on the bioluminescence system of coupled enzyme reactions catalyzed by bacterial luciferase and NADH:FMN-oxidoreductase (see in Introduction) were studied in [31,33,80]. Bioluminescence activation and inhibition were observed. A monotonic dependence on the concentration of tritiated water is evident from Figure 6. However, the authors [78] did not find similar monotonic dependence in a wide concentration range of tritiated water, and bioluminescence activation was only registered within the range of tritium radioactivity concentration of 0.005–200 Mbq/L.
Similar to the luminous bacterial cells, a low-concentration increase in the bioluminescence intensity was observed in the enzymatic system under low-concentration exposure to thorium-232 [96], thus revealing the hormetic phenomenon in the enzymatic assay system in thorium solutions.

3.2. Consumption of An Intracecllular Reducer, NADH

NADH is an organic intracellular reducer; it can be considered an indicator of the reduction activity in enzymatic and cellular systems, which is involved into complex metabolic processes in organisms.
The rates of NADH oxidation were studied in solutions of the components of the bioluminescent enzyme system: the enzyme preparation and FMN [94]. The data obtained in this study are shown in Table 1. The rates of NADH oxidation were determined in the presence and absence of thorium-232.
An increase in the rates of NADH oxidation in the solutions exposed to thorium-232 can be found in all the samples (1–4, Table 1), with this increase being equal to 1.5–1.7. This result demonstrates that thorium-232 increases the efficiency of the reduction process involving enzymes and biologically important molecules (FMN and NADH). Hence, thorium can both (1) increase the bioluminescence intensity by accelerating the enzymatic processes and (2) decrease the bioluminescence intensity by accelerating the non-enzymatic processes and removing low-molecular components out of active enzymatic centers. The balance between these two processes depends on the peculiarities of the enzyme environment and these should be taken into consideration while explaining the activation or inhibition effects of radionuclides.

3.3. Active Role of Reactive Oxygen Species

Molecular mechanisms of the radionuclide bioeffects are conventionally attributed to reactive oxygen species (ROS) which are generated in water bodies in the presence of dissolved molecular oxygen [31,88,103,104]. On the other hand, ROS are native products of metabolic oxidative processes in living organisms [105,106,107]. It was demonstrated that luminous marine bacteria naturally increase the ROS content in aquatic media, and intensify the ROS production upon the addition of tritium [78,97].
Chemically, ROS are products of the partial reduction of oxygen; the ROS group includes hydroxyl radicals (OH•), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), superoxide anion (O2•−), etc. [102].
According to modern approaches, ROS are able to produce both damaging and signal bioeffects [108,109]; they regulate vital functions, such as cellular protective or apoptosis responses [103]. ROS are responsible for migration, proliferation, and differentiation [110,111]; they are known as stimulators of cell division [112,113] and cell death—apoptosis, necrosis, and autophagy [114,115]. The signal function of ROS is now being discussed [112,116,117,118]. It should be noted that ROS can serve both as inter- and intra-cellular messengers [119,120,121]. Both reactive oxygen and nitrogen species [122] released by cells can serve as signal particles which initiate the radiation-induced ‘bystander effect’ [123,124]. It is stated in [125,126,127] that ROS are responsible for both inhibiting (toxic) and activating bioeffects. It is noted in the papers mentioned before that the lack of ROS can suppress biological functions, similarly to the excess of ROS, but only the latter is widely and conventionally stated and discussed in biomedical literature. The reason for both effects is the disturbance of the ROS balance in bacterial suspensions.
Rozhko et al. [79] explained the decrease in the ROS content in bacterial suspensions in tritiated water by consumption of ROS in the bacterial bioluminescence reaction followed by the formation of a reaction intermediate–peroxide flavin derivative [21,128]. An increase in the ROS content was also observed in this study, which was explained by the intensification of complex metabolic processes in bacterial cells under radioactive exposure to tritiated water, similarly to the explanation presented in [79]. Direct correlations between the time-dependences of the ROS content and the bacterial bioluminescence intensity were found in the studies by Rozhko [79,97], presenting the basis for the explanation of the bioluminescence activation or inhibition under exposure to the radionuclide.
The luminescent marine bacteria naturally increased the ROS content in aqueous media, and additionally increased the ROS production up to 300% in the presence of tritium [79]. Hašler et al. [129] confirmed that tritiated water can stimulate the ROS production in another type of bacteria, Pseudendoclonium basilense, a bacterial strain from standing water. The 300% activation of luminescence of marine bacteria by tritiated water was attributed to the ‘bystander effect’ [79]. The result was explained by the ‘trigger’ effect of tritium decay products, and by the signaling function of ROS.
The time-course of the ROS content in the bacterial suspension in the presence of the alpha-emitting radionuclide thorium-232 is presented in Figure 7 as curve 2, according to [96]. A moderate decrease in the ROS content (compared to the nonradioactive control sample) with a tendency to its restoration was found. Negative correlations between the ROS content and the bioluminescence intensity were found in this study, thus demonstrating inverse relations between the bacterial physiological functions and the ROS concentration in the environment. It was concluded that the consumption of ROS contributes to the bioluminescence activation under low-dose exposure to thorium-232. It is assumed that the role of ROS should be taken into consideration in studying molecular mechanisms of the ‘hormesis’ approach [53,130,131,132].
Hence, one should indicate the differences in the correlations for the effects of the alpha and beta emitting radionuclides (americium-241 and tritium, respectively): correlation coefficients between the time-dependences of the bioluminescence intensity and the ROS content differed in their sign. This fact reflects the complexity of the ROS-dependent processes occurring in the biological systems under exposure to radionuclides of different types.

3.4. Repair of DNA Damage

The first hypothetical mechanism of the hormesis phenomenon is based on repairing DNA damage [75,133,134]. The involvement of non-genetic mechanisms into low-dose chronic radioactive effects in luminous bacteria was proved earlier by Rozhko et al. [99,100] with the reference to the activation of membrane processes as a result of ionization of water media in radioactive solutions [7,135].

4. Role of Humic Substances as Radioprotective Agents in Water Solutions

Humic substances (HS) are complex mixtures of natural origin, being high-molecular organic compounds. They are formed due to the decomposition of animal and plant residues by microorganisms or due to abiotic environmental impacts [136]. HS can be found in soil, lakes and rivers [137]; they are included into and can be produced from peat, coal, sediments, and solid fossil fuels. The HS content in soil and natural water bodies is about 60–80% of the total organic matter, while in peat and coal, their content ranges from 20 to 90% [138].
Studying the effects of low-intensity radiation in the presence of HS forms the basis for predicting the response of living organisms to radiation in large areas contaminated with radionuclides after accidents, discharges from nuclear power plants or underground mining of natural resources [30,32,44,49,50,139].
Rozhko et al. and Kamnev et al. [140,141] analyzed the radioprotective effects of HS on luminescent marine bacteria exposed to the alpha-emitting radionuclide americium-241. Figure 8 shows the bacterial luminescence kinetics in an americium-241 solution in the absence and presence of HS. It evident that HS bring the kinetic curve closer to the control one, thus mitigating the effect of the radionuclide on the bacteria.
HS were shown to serve as radioprotectors in the solutions of the beta-emitting radionuclide tritium; they were found to reduce the inhibitory and activating effects of tritium, similarly to those of americium-241 (Figure 9, curve 2) [97].
Correlations between the ROS content and the bioluminescence yield were found by Rozhko, Kolesnik et al. [97], confirming the ROS involvement in the low-dose effects of HS and tritium.
No significant protective ability of HS was found in solutions of the alpha-emitting radionuclide with low specific radioactivity, namely uranium-(235 + 238) [142]. Solutions of another alpha-emitting radionuclide thorium-232 were moderately detoxified by HS, with the HS detoxifying ability depending on the exposure time, not exceeding 35% [143]. The studies mentioned [95,137,138,140] used the Gumat-80 preparation, ‘Gumat’, produced by non-extracting treatment of coal in Irkutsk, Russia. The characteristics of the preparation were following: humic acids ≈ 85%, soluble potassium—9%, iron—1%, water—5%, pH 8–9 in a 1% water solution. The variation of the HS types from different natural sources could probably lead to various quantitative radioprotective characteristics of HS.
The model experiments with marine bacteria discussed in the present section show that the humic substances serve as radioprotectors in natural water bodies in the presence of radionuclides. However, there exists evidence that other substances with an antiradical feature [144,145] also provide the radioprotective function. Investigation of the radioprotective ability of different substances, involving carbon nanoparticles with unsaturated bonds, for example, series of fullerenes of different structure, is a highly promising field which can provide ecological industry with effective radioprotectors.

5. Conclusions

This review summarizes the studies of marine microorganisms under the conditions of low-dose irradiation of alpha, beta, and gamma types. Luminous marine bacteria were chosen as an example of such microorganisms since they are known to be sensitive to toxic compounds. Bioluminescence intensity was used here as the main physiological test parameter of the bacteria. The aspects of molecular intracellular processes under exposure to low-intensity radiation were analyzed, namely: changes in the rates of enzymatic processes in the bacteria, consumption of an intracellular reducer, NADH, active role of reactive oxygen species, and repair of DNA damage.
Three stages in the bioluminescent response to radionuclides were found under the conditions of low-dose irradiation: (1) absence of effects, (2) activation, and (3) inhibition. The activation of bacterial bioluminescence was observed in the solutions of alpha-emitting radionuclides, americium-241 and thorium-232. An increase in the bacterial luminescence intensity in the presence of beta-emitting radionuclide tritium (in tritiated water, HTO), was also found.
The ability of HS to protect microorganisms in the solutions of alpha- and beta-emitting radionuclides, americium-241 and tritium, was reviewed.
The results can contribute to the understanding of the perspectives of bioluminescent assays for monitoring low-intensity radioactive exposures. Marine bacteria could be considered as a simplified model for understanding the effects of low-dose radiation on higher organisms.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.V.R. and N.S.K.; methodology, T.V.R. and N.S.K.; validation, N.S.K.; resources, T.V.R. and N.S.K.; data curation, O.V.K., T.V.R., and N.S.K.; writing—original draft preparation, O.V.K., T.V.R., and N.S.K.; writing—review and editing, O.V.K. and N.S.K.; visualization, O.V.K.; supervision, N.S.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This review was prepared with the partial financial support of the Program of the Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing (Russian Federation) 2020–2025.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

FMNflavin mononucleotide
HShumic substances
HTOtritiated water
NADHnicotinamide adenine dinucleotide
ROSreactive oxygen species

References

  1. The International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 99. Low-Dose Extrapolation of Radiation-Related Cancer Risk. Annals of the ICPR; Valentin, J., Ed.; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kudryashov, Y.B. Radiation Biophysics (Ionizing Radiation); Fizmatlit: Moscow, Russia, 2004; ISBN 5-9221-0388-1. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  3. Reisz, J.A.; Bansal, N.; Qian, J.; Zhao, W.; Furdui, C.M. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Biological Molecules—Mechanisms of Damage and Emerging Methods of Detection. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2014, 21, 260–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Yadav, A.N.; Yadav, N.; Kour, D.; Kumar, A.; Yadav, K.; Kumar, A.; Rastegari, A.A.; Sachan, S.G.; Singh, B.; Chauhan, V.S.; et al. Bacterial Community Composition in Lakes. In Freshwater Microbiology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 1–71. ISBN 9780128174951. [Google Scholar]
  5. Nevejan, N.; De Schryver, P.; Wille, M.; Dierckens, K.; Baruah, K.; Van Stappen, G. Bacteria as Food in Aquaculture: Do They Make a Difference? Rev. Aquac. 2018, 10, 180–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kudryasheva, N.S.; Rozhko, T.V. Effect of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation on Luminous Marine Bacteria: Radiation Hormesis and Toxicity. J. Environ. Radioact. 2015, 142, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Belli, M.; Indovina, L. The Response of Living Organisms to Low Radiation Environment and Its Implications in Radiation Protection. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 601711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Zhu, J.; Sun, X.; Zhang, Z.D.; Tang, Q.Y.; Gu, M.Y.; Zhang, L.J.; Hou, M.; Sharon, A.; Yuan, H.L. Effect of Ionizing Radiation on the Bacterial and Fungal Endophytes of the Halophytic Plant Kalidium Schrenkianum. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Girotti, S.; Ferri, E.N.; Fumo, M.G.; Maiolini, E. Monitoring of Environmental Pollutants by Bioluminescent Bacteria. Anal. Chim. Acta 2008, 608, 2–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Roda, A.; Guardigli, M.; Michelini, E.; Mirasoli, M. Bioluminescence in Analytical Chemistry and in Vivo Imaging. Trends Anal. Chem. 2009, 28, 307–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Syed, A.J.; Anderson, J.C. Applications of Bioluminescence in Biotechnology and Beyond. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2021, 50, 5668–5705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hassan, H.; Eltarahony, M.; Abu-Elreesh, G.; Abd-Elnaby, H.M.; Sabry, S.; Ghozlan, H. Toxicity Monitoring of Solvents, Hydrocarbons, and Heavy Metals Using Statistically Optimized Model of Luminous Vibrio sp. 6HFE. J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol. 2022, 20, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kratasyuk, V.A. Principle of Luciferase Biotesting. In Biological Luminescence; Jeżowska-Trzebiatowska, B., Kochel, B., Sławiński, J., Stręk, W., Eds.; WSPC: Singapore, 1990; p. 550. ISBN 978-9810204051. [Google Scholar]
  14. Leippe, D.M.; Nguyen, D.; Zhou, M.; Good, T.; Kirkland, T.A.; Scurria, M.; Bernad, L.; Ugo, T.; Vidugiriene, J.; Cali, J.J.; et al. A Bioluminescent Assay for the Sensitive Detection of Proteases. Biotechniques 2011, 51, 105–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kudryasheva, N.S.; Esimbekova, E.N.; Remmel, N.N.; Kratasyuk, V.A.; Visser, A.J.W.G.; van Hoek, A. Effect of Quinones and Phenols on the Triple-Enzyme Bioluminescent System with Protease. Luminescence 2003, 18, 224–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Kudryasheva, N.S.; Kudinova, I.Y.; Esimbekova, E.N.; Kratasyuk, V.A.; Stom, D.I. The Influence of Quinones and Phenols on the Triple NAD(H)-Dependent Enzyme Systems. Chemosphere 1999, 38, 751–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kudryasheva, N.S. Mechanisms of the Effect of Xenobiotics on Bacterial Bioluminescence. Luminescence 1999, 14, 199–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Esimbekova, E.; Kratasyuk, V.; Shimomura, O. Application of Enzyme Bioluminescence in Ecology. In Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology; Thouand, G., Marks, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; Volume 144, pp. 67–109. ISBN 9783662433850. [Google Scholar]
  19. Esimbekova, E.N.; Torgashina, I.G.; Kalyabina, V.P.; Kratasyuk, V.A. Enzymatic Biotesting: Scientific Basis and Application. Contemp. Probl. Ecol. 2021, 14, 290–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kudryasheva, N.S. Bioluminescence and Exogenous Compounds: Physico-Chemical Basis for Bioluminescent Assay. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2006, 83, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nemtseva, E.V.; Kudryasheva, N.S. The Mechanism of Electronic Excitation in the Bacterial Bioluminescent Reaction. Russ. Chem. Rev. 2007, 76, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kudryasheva, N.S.; Nemtseva, E.V.; Kirillova, T.N. Exogenous Compounds in Studying the Mechanism of Electron-Excited State Formation in Bioluminescence. Biopolymers 2004, 74, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kudryasheva, N.S.; Nemtseva, E.V.; Visser, A.J.W.G.; van Hoek, A. Interaction of Aromatic Compounds With Photobacterium Leiognathi Luciferase: Fluorescence Anisotropy Study. Luminescence 2003, 18, 156–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Vetrova, E.V.; Kudryasheva, N.S.; Visser, A.J.W.G.; van Hoek, A. Characteristics of Endogenous Flavin Fluorescence Of Photobacterium Leiognathi Luciferase And Vibrio Fischeri NAD(P)H:FMN-Oxidoreductase. Luminescence 2005, 20, 205–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vetrova, E.V.; Kudryasheva, N.S.; Kratasyuk, V.A. Redox Compounds Influence on the NAD(P)H:FMN–Oxidoreductase–Luciferase Bioluminescent System. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2007, 6, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vetrova, E.V.; Kudryasheva, N.S.; Cheng, K.H. Effect of Quinone on the Fluorescence Decay Dynamics of Endogenous Flavin Bound to Bacterial Luciferase. Biophys. Chem. 2009, 141, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kirillova, T.N.; Gerasimova, M.A.; Nemtseva, E.V.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Effect of Halogenated Fluorescent Compounds on Bioluminescent Reactions. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2011, 400, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Kirillova, T.N.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Effect of Heavy Atoms in Bioluminescent Reactions. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2007, 387, 2009–2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Gerasimova, M.A.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Effects of Potassium Halides on Bacterial Bioluminescence. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2002, 66, 218–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Tarasova, A.S.; Stom, D.I.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Effect of Humic Substances on Toxicity of Inorganic Oxidizer Bioluminescent Monitoring. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2011, 30, 1013–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Selivanova, M.A.; Mogilnaya, O.A.; Badun, G.A.; Vydryakova, G.A.; Kuznetsov, A.M.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Effect of Tritium on Luminous Marine Bacteria and Enzyme Reactions. J. Environ. Radioact. 2013, 120, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tarasova, A.S.; Kislan, S.L.; Fedorova, E.S.; Kuznetsov, A.M.; Mogilnaya, O.A.; Stom, D.I.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Bioluminescence as a Tool for Studying Detoxification Processes in Metal Salt Solutions Involving Humic Substances. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2012, 117, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Alexandrova, M.; Rozhko, T.; Vydryakova, G.; Kudryasheva, N. Effect of Americium-241 on Luminous Bacteria. Role of Peroxides. J. Environ. Radioact. 2011, 102, 407–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rozhko, T.V.; Kudryasheva, N.S.; Kuznetsov, A.M.; Vydryakova, G.A.; Bondareva, L.G.; Bolsunovsky, A.Y. Effect of Low-Level α-Radiation on Bioluminescent Assay Systems of Various Complexity. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2007, 6, 67–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kudryasheva, N.S.; Zuzikova, E.V.; Gutnyk, T.V.; Kuznetsov, A.M. Metallic Salts Action on Bacterial Bioluminescent Systems of Different Complexity. Biofizika 1996, 41, 1264–1269. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  36. Artifon, V.; Zanardi-Lamardo, E.; Fillmann, G. Aquatic Organic Matter: Classification and Interaction with Organic Microcontaminants. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 649, 1620–1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kovalchuk, A.; Kolb, B. Low Dose Radiation Effects on the Brain—From Mechanisms and Behavioral Outcomes to Mitigation Strategies. Cell Cycle 2017, 16, 1266–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Lipczynska-Kochany, E. Humic Substances, Their Microbial Interactions and Effects on Biological Transformations of Organic Pollutants in Water and Soil: A Review. Chemosphere 2018, 202, 420–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Nehete, S.V.; Christensen, T.; Salbu, B.; Teien, H.-C. Ultraviolet-B Radiation Mobilizes Uranium from Uranium-Dissolved Organic Carbon Complexes in Aquatic Systems, Demonstrated by Asymmetrical Flow Field-Flow Fractionation. J. Chromatogr. A 2017, 1496, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Perminova, I.V.; García-Mina, J.-M.; Knicker, H.; Miano, T. Humic Substances and Nature-like Technologies. J. Soils Sediments 2019, 19, 2663–2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Fedorova, E.; Kudryasheva, N.; Kuznetsov, A.; Mogil’naya, O.; Stom, D. Bioluminescent Monitoring of Detoxification Processes: Activity of Humic Substances in Quinone Solutions. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2007, 88, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kudryasheva, N.S.; Tarasova, A.S. Pollutant Toxicity and Detoxification by Humic Substances: Mechanisms and Quantitative Assessment via Luminescent Biomonitoring. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kamnev, A.A.; Dykman, R.L.; Kovács, K.; Pankratov, A.N.; Tugarova, A.V.; Homonnay, Z.; Kuzmann, E. Redox Interactions between Structurally Different Alkylresorcinols and Iron(III) in Aqueous Media: Frozen-Solution 57Fe Mössbauer Spectroscopic Studies, Redox Kinetics and Quantum Chemical Evaluation of the Alkylresorcinol Reactivities. Struct. Chem. 2014, 25, 649–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Stasiuk, M.; Kozubek, A. Biological Activity of Phenolic Lipids. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2010, 67, 841–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jacob, K.K.; Prashob, P.K.; Chandramohanakumar, N. Humic Substances as a Potent Biomaterials for Therapeutic and Drug Delivery System—A Review. Int. J. Appl. Pharm. 2019, 11, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Morozesk, M.; Bonomo, M.M.; Souza, I.d.C.; Rocha, L.D.; Duarte, I.D.; Martins, I.O.; Dobbss, L.B.; Carneiro, M.T.W.D.; Fernandes, M.N.; Matsumoto, S.T. Effects of Humic Acids from Landfill Leachate on Plants: An Integrated Approach Using Chemical, Biochemical and Cytogenetic Analysis. Chemosphere 2017, 184, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sachkova, A.S.; Kovel, E.S.; Churilov, G.N.; Stom, D.I.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Biological Activity of Carbonic Nano-Structures—Comparison via Enzymatic Bioassay. J. Soils Sediments 2019, 19, 2689–2696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Shah, Z.H.; Rehman, H.M.; Akhtar, T.; Alsamadany, H.; Hamooh, B.T.; Mujtaba, T.; Daur, I.; Al Zahrani, Y.; Alzahrani, H.A.S.; Ali, S.; et al. Humic Substances: Determining Potential Molecular Regulatory Processes in Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Tarasova, A.S.; Stom, D.I.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Antioxidant Activity of Humic Substances via Bioluminescent Monitoring in Vitro. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bondareva, L.; Kudryasheva, N. Direct and Indirect Detoxification Effects of Humic Substances. Agronomy 2021, 11, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Selye, H. Changing Distress into Eustress-Selye, Hans Voices Theories on Stress. Tex. Med. 1980, 76, 78–80. [Google Scholar]
  52. Calabrese, E.J. Hormetic Mechanisms. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2013, 43, 580–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Calabrese, E. Hormesis: Path and Progression to Significance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 2871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Burlakova, E.B.; Kondradov, A.A.; Mal’tseva, E.L. Superweak Effects of Chemical Compounds and Physical Factors on Biological Systems. Biofizika 2004, 49, 551–564. [Google Scholar]
  55. Southam, C.M. Effects of Extract of Western Red-Cedar Heartwood on Certain Wood-Decaying Fungi in Culture. Phytopathology 1943, 33, 517–524. [Google Scholar]
  56. Luckey, T.D. Hormesis with Ionizing Radiation; CRC Press: New York, NY, USA, 1980; Volume 60, ISBN 9780367227166. [Google Scholar]
  57. Feinendegen, L.E.; Pollycove, M.; Neumann, R.D. Low-Dose Cancer Risk Modeling Must Recognize up-Regulation of Protection. Dose-Response 2010, 8, 227–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Azzam, E.I. What Does Radiation Biology Tell Us about Potential Health Effects at Low Dose and Low Dose Rates? J. Radiol. Prot. 2019, 39, S28–S39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Mothersill, C.; Seymour, C. Implications for Human and Environmental Health of Low Doses of Ionising Radiation. J. Environ. Radioact. 2014, 133, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Ray, S.D.; Farris, F.F.; Hartmann, A.C. Hormesis. In Encyclopedia of Toxicology; Wexler, P., Anderson, B.D., Gad, S.C., Hakkinen, P.B., Kamrin, M., De Peyster, A., Locey, B., Pope, C., Mehendale, H.M., Shugart, L.R., Eds.; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 944–948. ISBN 978-0-12-386455-0. [Google Scholar]
  61. Huang, Y.; Qin, M.; Lai, J.; Liang, J.; Luo, X.; Li, C. Assessing OBT Formation and Enrichment: ROS Signaling Is Involved in the Radiation Hormesis Induced by Tritium Exposure in Algae. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 443, 130159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Mesquita, N.; Portugal, A.; Piñar, G.; Loureiro, J.; Coutinho, A.P.; Trovão, J.; Nunes, I.; Botelho, M.L.; Freitas, H. Flow Cytometry as a Tool to Assess the Effects of Gamma Radiation on the Viability, Growth and Metabolic Activity of Fungal Spores. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2013, 84, 250–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Paul, J.; Kadam, A.A.; Govindwar, S.P.; Kumar, P.; Varshney, L. An Insight into the Influence of Low Dose Irradiation Pretreatment on the Microbial Decolouration and Degradation of Reactive Red-120 Dye. Chemosphere 2013, 90, 1348–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Xavier, M.d.l.P.; Dauber, C.; Mussio, P.; Delgado, E.; Maquieira, A.; Soria, A.; Curuchet, A.; Márquez, R.; Méndez, C.; López, T. Use of Mild Irradiation Doses to Control Pathogenic Bacteria on Meat Trimmings for Production of Patties Aiming at Provoking Minimal Changes in Quality Attributes. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 383–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Calabrese, E.J. The Dose–Response Revolution: How Hormesis Became Significant. In The Science of Hormesis in Health and Longevity; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 3–24. ISBN 9780128142547. [Google Scholar]
  66. Agathokleous, E.; Kitao, M.; Calabrese, E.J. Hormesis: Highly Generalizable and Beyond Laboratory. Trends Plant Sci. 2020, 25, 1076–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lloyd, D.C.; Edwards, A.A.; Leonard, A.; Deknudt, G.L.; Verschaeve, L.; Natarajan, A.T.; Darroudi, F.; Obe, G.; Palitti, F.; Tanzarella, C.; et al. Chromosomal Aberrations in Human Lymphocytes Induced in Vitro by Very Low Doses of X-Rays. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 1992, 61, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Zaka, R.; Chenal, C.; Misset, M.T. Study of External Low Irradiation Dose Effects on Induction of Chromosome Aberrations in Pisum Sativum Root Tip Meristem. Mutat. Res.-Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 2002, 517, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mossman, K.L. Deconstructing Radiation Hormesis. Health Phys. 2001, 80, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Lau, Y.S.; Chew, M.T.; Alqahtani, A.; Jones, B.; Hill, M.A.; Nisbet, A.; Bradley, D.A. Low Dose Ionising Radiation-Induced Hormesis: Therapeutic Implications to Human Health. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Calabrese, E.J.; Stanek, E.J.; Nascarella, M.A.; Hoffmann, G.R. Hormesis Predicts Low-Dose Responses Better than Threshold Models. Int. J. Toxicol. 2008, 27, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Kudryasheva, N.S.; Kovel, E.S. Monitoring of Low-Intensity Exposures via Luminescent Bioassays of Different Complexity: Cells, Enzyme Reactions, and Fluorescent Proteins. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 4451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Roda, A.; Pasini, P.; Mirasoli, M.; Michelini, E.; Guardigli, M. Biotechnological Applications of Bioluminescence and Chemiluminescence. Trends Biotechnol. 2004, 22, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ismailov, A.D.; Aleskerova, L.E. Photobiosensors Containing Luminescent Bacteria. Biochemistry 2015, 80, 733–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Min, J.; Lee, C.W.; Gu, M.B. Gamma-Radiation Dose-Rate Effects on DNA Damage and Toxicity in Bacterial Cells. Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 2003, 42, 189–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Abbas, M.; Adil, M.; Ehtisham-ul-Haque, S.; Munir, B.; Yameen, M.; Ghaffar, A.; Shar, G.A.; Asif Tahir, M.; Iqbal, M. Vibrio Fischeri Bioluminescence Inhibition Assay for Ecotoxicity Assessment: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 626, 1295–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wanjari, R.A.; Shanware, A.S.; Dhoble, S.J. Influence of Ultraviolet and Gamma Ray Irradiation on Luminescent Bacteria and Exploring Their Efficacy as Biosensors. Luminescence 2021, 36, 525–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rozhko, T.V.; Nemtseva, E.V.; Gardt, M.V.; Raikov, A.V.; Lisitsa, A.E.; Badun, G.A.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Enzymatic Responses to Low-Intensity Radiation of Tritium. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 8464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Rozhko, T.V.; Nogovitsyna, E.I.; Badun, G.A.; Lukyanchuk, A.N.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Reactive Oxygen Species and Low-Dose Effects of Tritium on Bacterial Cells. J. Environ. Radioact. 2019, 208–209, 106035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Selivanova, M.A.; Rozhko, T.V.; Devyatlovskaya, A.N.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Comparison of Chronic Low-Dose Effects of Alpha- and Beta-Emitting Radionuclides on Marine Bacteria. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 2014, 9, 951–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kudryasheva, N.S.; Petrova, A.S.; Dementyev, D.V.; Bondar, A.A. Exposure of Luminous Marine Bacteria to Low-Dose Gamma-Radiation. J. Environ. Radioact. 2017, 169–170, 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Yamato, A. An Anion Exchange Method for the Determination Of 241Am and Plutonium in Environmental and Biological Samples. J. Radioanal. Chem. 1982, 75, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Choppin, G.R. Structure and Thermodynamics of Lanthanide and Actinide Complexes in Solution. Pure Appl. Chem. 1971, 27, 23–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Gudkov, D.I.; Zub, L.N.; Derevets, V.V.; Kuz’menko, M.I.; Nazarov, A.B.; Kaglian, A.E.; Savitskiĭ, A.L. 90Sr, 137Cs, 238Pu, 239+240Pu, and 241Am radionuclides in macrophytes within the Krasnensky flood plain: Species specificity of concentration and distribution in phytocenosis components. Radiatsionnaia Biol. Radioecol. 2002, 42, 419–428. [Google Scholar]
  85. Bolsunovsky, A. Artificial Radionuclides in Sediment of the Yenisei River. Chem. Ecol. 2010, 26, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Zotina, T.A.; Kalacheva, G.S.; Bolsunovsky, A.Y. Biochemical Fractionation and Cellular Distribution of Americium and Plutonium in the Biomass of Freshwater Macrophytes. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 2011, 290, 447–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zotina, T.A.; Trofimova, E.A.; Dementyev, D.V.; Bolsunovsky, A.Y. Bioaccumulation, Inter-Organ Distribution, and Retention of Waterborne and Dietary 241Am in Silver Crucian Carp. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 2014, 96, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Smith, R.W.; Wang, J.; Schültke, E.; Seymour, C.B.; Bräuer-Krisch, E.; Laissue, J.A.; Blattmann, H.; Mothersill, C.E. Proteomic Changes in the Rat Brain Induced by Homogenous Irradiation and by the Bystander Effect Resulting from High Energy Synchrotron X-Ray Microbeams. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2013, 89, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Herb, M.; Schramm, M. Functions of ROS in Macrophages and Antimicrobial Immunity. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Paiva, C.N.; Bozza, M.T. Are Reactive Oxygen Species Always Detrimental to Pathogens? Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2014, 20, 1000–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  91. Cheng, C.; Chen, L.; Guo, K.; Xie, J.; Shu, Y.; He, S.; Xiao, F. Progress of Uranium-Contaminated Soil Bioremediation Technology. J. Environ. Radioact. 2022, 241, 106773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Merkel, B.J.; Hoyer, M. Remediation of Sites Contaminated by Radionuclides. In Radionuclide Behaviour in the Natural Environment: Science, Implications and Lessons for the Nuclear Industry; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2012; pp. 601–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Szufa, K.M.; Mietelski, J.W.; Olech, M.A. Assessment of Internal Radiation Exposure to Antarctic Biota Due to Selected Natural Radionuclides in Terrestrial and Marine Environment. J. Environ. Radioact. 2021, 237, 106713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Strumińska-Parulska, D.; Falandysz, J. A Review of the Occurrence of Alpha-Emitting Radionuclides in Wild Mushrooms. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Rozhko, T.V.; Kudryasheva, N.S.; Alexandrova, M.A.; Bondareva, L.G.; Bolsunovsky, A.Y.; Vydryakova, G.V. Comparison of Effects of Uranium and Americium on Bioluminescent Bacteria. J. Sib. Fed. Univ. Biol. 2008, 1, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kolesnik, O.V.; Rozhko, T.V.; Lapina, M.A.; Solovyev, V.S.; Sachkova, A.S.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Development of Cellular and Enzymatic Bioluminescent Assay Systems to Study Low-Dose Effects of Thorium. Bioengineering 2021, 8, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Rozhko, T.V.; Kolesnik, O.V.; Badun, G.A.; Stom, D.I.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Humic Substances Mitigate the Impact of Tritium on Luminous Marine Bacteria. Involvement of Reactive Oxygen Species. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 6783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Bondareva, L.; Kudryasheva, N.; Tananaev, I. Tritium: Doses and Responses of Aquatic Living Organisms (Model Experiments). Environments 2022, 9, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Rozhko, T.V.; Badun, G.A.; Razzhivina, I.A.; Guseynov, O.A.; Guseynova, V.E.; Kudryasheva, N.S. On the Mechanism of Biological Activation by Tritium. J. Environ. Radioact. 2016, 157, 131–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Rozhko, T.V.; Guseynov, O.A.; Guseynova, V.E.; Bondar, A.A.; Devyatlovskaya, A.N.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Is Bacterial Luminescence Response to Low-Dose Radiation Associated with Mutagenicity? J. Environ. Radioact. 2017, 177, 261–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  101. Jameel, Q.Y.; Mohammed, N.K. Protective Rules of Natural Antioxidants against Gamma-induced Damage—A Review. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 9, 5263–5278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Ernawati; Suryadi, H.; Mun’im, A. Effect of Gamma Irradiation on the Caffeoylquinic Acid Derivatives Content, Antioxidant Activity, and Microbial Contamination of Pluchea Indica Leaves. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Matsumoto, H.; HamadaA, N.; Takahashi, A.; Kobayashi, Y.; Ohinishi, T. Vanguards of Paradigm Shift in Radiation Biology: Radiation-Induced Adaptive and Bystander Responses. J. Radiat. Res. 2007, 48, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Azzam, E.I.; Jay-Gerin, J.-P.; Pain, D. Ionizing Radiation-Induced Metabolic Oxidative Stress and Prolonged Cell Injury. Cancer Lett. 2012, 327, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  105. Brynildsen, M.P.; Winkler, J.A.; Spina, C.S.; MacDonald, I.C.; Collins, J.J. Potentiating Antibacterial Activity by Predictably Enhancing Endogenous Microbial ROS Production. Nat. Biotechnol. 2013, 31, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Ezraty, B.; Gennaris, A.; Barras, F.; Collet, J.-F. Oxidative Stress, Protein Damage and Repair in Bacteria. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017, 15, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Abdal Dayem, A.; Hossain, M.; Lee, S.; Kim, K.; Saha, S.; Yang, G.-M.; Choi, H.; Cho, S.-G. The Role of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) in the Biological Activities of Metallic Nanoparticles. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Dickinson, B.C.; Chang, C.J. Chemistry and Biology of Reactive Oxygen Species in Signaling or Stress Responses. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2011, 7, 504–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Zakhvataev, V.E. Stress-Induced Bystander Signaling as a Possible Factor Contributing to Neuronal Excitability and Seizure Generation/Epileptogenesis. Med. Hypotheses 2016, 90, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Griendling, K.K.; Touyz, R.M.; Zweier, J.L.; Dikalov, S.; Chilian, W.; Chen, Y.-R.; Harrison, D.G.; Bhatnagar, A. Measurement of Reactive Oxygen Species, Reactive Nitrogen Species, and Redox-Dependent Signaling in the Cardiovascular System. Circ. Res. 2016, 119, 39–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  111. Suzen, S.; Gurer-Orhan, H.; Saso, L. Detection of Reactive Oxygen and Nitrogen Species by Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) Technique. Molecules 2017, 22, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Proctor, P. Electron-Transfer Factors in Psychosis and Dyskinesia. Physiol. Chem. Phys. 1972, 4, 349–360. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  113. Nadeev, A.D.; Goncharov, N.V. Reactive Oxygen Species in the Cells of Cardiovascular System. Complex Issues Cardiovasc. Dis. 2015, 4, 80–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Aprioku, J.S. Pharmacology of Free Radicals and the Impact of Reactive Oxygen Species on the Testis. J. Reprod. Infertil. 2013, 14, 158–172. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  115. Imlay, J.A. The Molecular Mechanisms and Physiological Consequences of Oxidative Stress: Lessons from a Model Bacterium. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 11, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Liberti, M.V.; Locasale, J.W. The Warburg Effect: How Does It Benefit Cancer Cells? Trends Biochem. Sci. 2016, 41, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Moloney, J.N.; Cotter, T.G. ROS Signalling in the Biology of Cancer. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2018, 80, 50–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Fetoni, A.R.; Paciello, F.; Rolesi, R.; Paludetti, G.; Troiani, D. Targeting Dysregulation of Redox Homeostasis in Noise-Induced Hearing Loss: Oxidative Stress and ROS Signaling. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2019, 135, 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Hancock, J.T.; Desikan, R.; Neill, S.J. Role of Reactive Oxygen Species in Cell Signalling Pathways. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2001, 29, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Kashmiri, Z.N.; Mankar, S.A. Free Radicals and Oxidative Stress in Bacteria. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2014, 3, 34–40. [Google Scholar]
  121. Srinivas, U.S.; Tan, B.W.Q.; Vellayappan, B.A.; Jeyasekharan, A.D. ROS and the DNA Damage Response in Cancer. Redox Biol. 2019, 25, 101084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Luzina, E.L.; Popov, A. V Synthesis and Anticancer Activity of N-Bis(Trifluoromethyl)Alkyl-N′-Thiazolyl and N-Bis(Trifluoromethyl)Alkyl-N′-Benzothiazolyl Ureas. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2009, 44, 4944–4953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Jella, K.K.; Moriarty, R.; McClean, B.; Byrne, H.J.; Lyng, F.M. Reactive Oxygen Species and Nitric Oxide Signaling in Bystander Cells. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Sokolov, M.; Neumann, R. Changes in Gene Expression as One of the Key Mechanisms Involved in Radiation-induced Bystander Effect (Review). Biomed. Rep. 2018, 9, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Sushko, E.S.; Vnukova, N.G.; Churilov, G.N.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Endohedral Gd-Containing Fullerenol: Toxicity, Antioxidant Activity, and Regulation of Reactive Oxygen Species in Cellular and Enzymatic Systems. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 5152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Kovel, E.S.; Kicheeva, A.G.; Vnukova, N.G.; Churilov, G.N.; Stepin, E.A.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Toxicity and Antioxidant Activity of Fullerenol C60,70 with Low Number of Oxygen Substituents. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 6382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Kovel, E.; Sachkova, A.; Vnukova, N.; Churilov, G.; Knyazeva, E.; Kudryasheva, N. Antioxidant Activity and Toxicity of Fullerenols via Bioluminescence Signaling: Role of Oxygen Substituents. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Wilson, T.; Hastings, J.W. Bioluminescence. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 1998, 14, 197–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Hašler, P.; Ondřej, V.; Švécarová, M.; Sedlářová, M.; Vaidová, B.; Poulíčková, A. Tritium Influence on Morphology, Reactive Oxygen Species Production and Catalase Gene Expression in Pseudendoclonium basilense and Stigeoclonium nanum (Chlorophyta). Fottea 2017, 17, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Ge, H.; Zhou, M.; Lv, D.; Wang, M.; Xie, D.; Yang, X.; Dong, C.; Li, S.; Lin, P. Novel Segmented Concentration Addition Method to Predict Mixture Hormesis of Chlortetracycline Hydrochloride and Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride to Aliivibrio fischeri. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  131. Jargin, S. Hormesis and Radiation Safety Norms: Comments for an Update. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 2018, 37, 1233–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Shibamoto, Y.; Nakamura, H. Overview of Biological, Epidemiological, and Clinical Evidence of Radiation Hormesis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 2387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  133. Burlakova, E.B.; Konradov, A.A.; Maltseva, E.L. Effects of Extremely Weak Chemical and Physical Stimuli on Biological Systems. Biophysics 2004, 49, 522–534. [Google Scholar]
  134. Kurvet, I.; Ivask, A.; Bondarenko, O.; Sihtmäe, M.; Kahru, A. LuxCDABE-Transformed Constitutively Bioluminescent Escherichia Coli for Toxicity Screening: Comparison with Naturally Luminous Vibrio Fischeri. Sensors 2011, 11, 7865–7878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Khan, A.U.H.; Blimkie, M.; Yang, D.S.; Serran, M.; Pack, T.; Wu, J.; Kang, J.Y.; Laakso, H.; Lee, S.H.; Le, Y. Effects of Chronic Low-Dose Internal Radiation on Immune-Stimulatory Responses in Mice. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 7303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Orlov, D.S. Humic Substances of Soils and General Theory of Humification; Moscow State University: Moscow, Russia, 1990; ISBN 5-211-00934-7. [Google Scholar]
  137. Weber, J.H. Binding and Transport of Metals by Humic Materials. In Humic Substances and Their Role in the Environment; John Wiley and Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1988; pp. 165–178. [Google Scholar]
  138. Perminova, I.V.; Hatfield, K. Remediation Chemistry of Humic Substances: Theory and Implications for Technology. In Use of Humic Substances to Remediate Polluted Environments: From Theory to Practice; Perminova, I.V., Hatfield, K., Hertkorn, N., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 3–36. ISBN 140203251X. [Google Scholar]
  139. Terekhova, V.A.; Fedoseeva, E.V.; Panova, M.I.; Chukov, S.N. Bioassay of Humic Products as Potential Remedies: A Review. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2022, 55, 868–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Rozhko, T.; Bondareva, L.; Mogilnaya, O.; Vydryakova, G.; Bolsunovsky, A.; Stom, D.; Kudryasheva, N. Detoxification of AM-241 Solutions by Humic Substances: Bioluminescent Monitoring. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2011, 400, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Kamnev, A.A.; Tugarova, A.V.; Selivanova, M.A.; Tarantilis, P.A.; Polissiou, M.G.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Effects of Americium-241 and Humic Substances on Photobacterium Phosphoreum: Bioluminescence and Diffuse Reflectance FTIR Spectroscopic Studies. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2013, 100, 171–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Kudryasheva, N.; Fedorova, E.; Rozhko, T.; Alexandrova, M.; Mogil’naya, O.; Vydryakova, G.; Bondareva, L.; Bolsunovsky, A.; Stom, D. Bioluminescent Monitoring of Detoxification Processes. In Proceedings of the 14th International Meeting of the International Humic Substances Society, Moscow, Russia, 14–19 September 2008; pp. 261–264. [Google Scholar]
  143. Solovyev, V.S.; Kolesnik, O.V. Humic substances as radioprotectors. Bioluminescent monitoring. In Proceedings of the A Step into the Future: Results of Scientific Research: All-Russian Competition of Research Projects for Students, Postgraduates and Young Scientists, Yelets, Russia, 15 May 2021; pp. 146–155. (In Russian). [Google Scholar]
  144. Chawla, P.; Chawla, V.; Maheshwari, R.; Saraf, S.A.; Saraf, S.K. Fullerenes: From Carbon to Nanomedicine. Mini-Rev. Med. Chem. 2010, 10, 662–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Vávrová, J.; Řezácová, M.; Pejchal, J. Fullerene Nano Particles and Their Anti-Oxidative Effects: A Comparison to Other Radio Protective Agents. J. Appl. Biomed. 2012, 10, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijms 24 00410 g001 550
Figure 1. Scheme of the dose-effect models; (1) hormesis; (2) threshold; (3) linear [72].
Figure 1. Scheme of the dose-effect models; (1) hormesis; (2) threshold; (3) linear [72].
Ijms 24 00410 g001
Ijms 24 00410 g002 550
Figure 2. Bioluminescence kinetics of bacteria in the solution of americium-241, 3 kBq/L [72,80].
Figure 2. Bioluminescence kinetics of bacteria in the solution of americium-241, 3 kBq/L [72,80].
Ijms 24 00410 g002
Ijms 24 00410 g003 550
Figure 3. (1) Relative bioluminescence intensity, Irel, and (2) relative reactive oxygen species content, ROSrel, in a bacterial suspension at different concentrations of Th-232, M. The time of exposure to Th-232 was 1 h. The ROS content in the control (non-radioactive) sample was 5.5 × 10–6 M [96].
Figure 3. (1) Relative bioluminescence intensity, Irel, and (2) relative reactive oxygen species content, ROSrel, in a bacterial suspension at different concentrations of Th-232, M. The time of exposure to Th-232 was 1 h. The ROS content in the control (non-radioactive) sample was 5.5 × 10–6 M [96].
Ijms 24 00410 g003
Ijms 24 00410 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of tritiated water on bacterial bioluminescence. (A) Bacterial bioluminescence kinetics in tritiated water, 2 MBq/L; the red arrows indicate the time of sampling (20 and 50 h); (B) bacterial bioluminescence intensity vs. activity concentration of tritiated water at different exposure times: 20 h (black) and 50 h (green) [72,78,98].
Figure 4. Effect of tritiated water on bacterial bioluminescence. (A) Bacterial bioluminescence kinetics in tritiated water, 2 MBq/L; the red arrows indicate the time of sampling (20 and 50 h); (B) bacterial bioluminescence intensity vs. activity concentration of tritiated water at different exposure times: 20 h (black) and 50 h (green) [72,78,98].
Ijms 24 00410 g004
Ijms 24 00410 g005 550
Figure 5. Bioluminescence intensity, Irel, of P. phosphoreum exposed to gamma radiation at different dose rates, 137Cs, 20 °C. The error for Irel was 10% [72,81].
Figure 5. Bioluminescence intensity, Irel, of P. phosphoreum exposed to gamma radiation at different dose rates, 137Cs, 20 °C. The error for Irel was 10% [72,81].
Ijms 24 00410 g005
Ijms 24 00410 g006 550
Figure 6. Bioluminescent intensity of the enzyme system, Irel, vs. radioactivity concentration of tritiated water, A, MBq/L [31,33,72,80].
Figure 6. Bioluminescent intensity of the enzyme system, Irel, vs. radioactivity concentration of tritiated water, A, MBq/L [31,33,72,80].
Ijms 24 00410 g006
Ijms 24 00410 g007 550
Figure 7. (1) Kinetics of bacterial bioluminescence, Irel, and (2) ROS content, ROSrel, in the presence of thorium-232, 10−7 M [96].
Figure 7. (1) Kinetics of bacterial bioluminescence, Irel, and (2) ROS content, ROSrel, in the presence of thorium-232, 10−7 M [96].
Ijms 24 00410 g007
Ijms 24 00410 g008 550
Figure 8. Chronic effects of Am-241 on luminous bacteria, (a) kinetics of the bioluminescence intensity, Irel, (b) percentage of Am-241 in the cellular fraction: (1) in the absence of humic substances; (2) in the presence of humic substances. The radioactivity of Am-241 solution was 3000 Bq/L (C  =  10−10 M). The concentration of the humic substances was 0.25 g/L [50,140].
Figure 8. Chronic effects of Am-241 on luminous bacteria, (a) kinetics of the bioluminescence intensity, Irel, (b) percentage of Am-241 in the cellular fraction: (1) in the absence of humic substances; (2) in the presence of humic substances. The radioactivity of Am-241 solution was 3000 Bq/L (C  =  10−10 M). The concentration of the humic substances was 0.25 g/L [50,140].
Ijms 24 00410 g008
Ijms 24 00410 g009 550
Figure 9. Bacterial bioluminescence kinetics in HTO in the absence (1) and presence (2) of humic substances (HS). The specific radioactivity of HTO: (A) 2 MBq/L; (B) 50 MBq/L. The HS concentration was 10−3 g/L [97].
Figure 9. Bacterial bioluminescence kinetics in HTO in the absence (1) and presence (2) of humic substances (HS). The specific radioactivity of HTO: (A) 2 MBq/L; (B) 50 MBq/L. The HS concentration was 10−3 g/L [97].
Ijms 24 00410 g009
Table
Table 1. Rates of NADH oxidation (V) in the solutions of different composition. The wavelength of optical density registration was 340 nm. The concentration of Th(NO3)4, was 10−7 M [96].
Table 1. Rates of NADH oxidation (V) in the solutions of different composition. The wavelength of optical density registration was 340 nm. The concentration of Th(NO3)4, was 10−7 M [96].
Number of SolutionsComponents of SolutionsV∙108, M
without Thwith Th
1NADH2.434.05
2NADH + enzyme preparation4.056.07
3NADH + FMN14.2020.60
4NADH + FMN + enzyme preparation16.2026.70
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kolesnik, O.V.; Rozhko, T.V.; Kudryasheva, N.S. Marine Bacteria under Low-Intensity Radioactive Exposure: Model Experiments. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24010410

AMA Style

Kolesnik OV, Rozhko TV, Kudryasheva NS. Marine Bacteria under Low-Intensity Radioactive Exposure: Model Experiments. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023; 24(1):410. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24010410

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kolesnik, Olga V., Tatiana V. Rozhko, and Nadezhda S. Kudryasheva. 2023. "Marine Bacteria under Low-Intensity Radioactive Exposure: Model Experiments" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24, no. 1: 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24010410

APA Style

Kolesnik, O. V., Rozhko, T. V., & Kudryasheva, N. S. (2023). Marine Bacteria under Low-Intensity Radioactive Exposure: Model Experiments. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24(1), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24010410

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop