The Mouse House: A brief history of the ORNL mouse-genetics program, 1947–2009

Muller and mutations: mouse study of George Snell (a postdoc of Muller) fails to confirm Muller's fruit fly findings, and Muller fails to cite Snell's findings

In 1931, Hermann J. Muller's postdoctoral student, George D. Snell (Nobel Prize recipient--1980) initiated research to replicate with mice Muller's X-ray-induced mutational findings with fruit flies. Snell failed to induce the two types of mutations of interest, based on fly data (sex-linked lethals/recessive visible mutations) even though the study was well designed, used large doses of X-rays, and was published in Genetics. These findings were never cited by Muller, and the Snell paper (Snell, Genetics 20:545-567, 1935) did not cite the 1927 Muller paper (Muller, Science 66:84, 1927). This situation raises questions concerning how Snell wrote the paper (e.g., ignoring the significance of not providing support for Muller's findings in a mammal). The question may be raised whether professional pressures were placed upon Snell to downplay the significance of his findings, which could have negatively impacted the career of Muller and the LNT theory. While Muller would receive worldwide attention, and receive the Nobel Prize in 1946 "for the discovery that mutations can be induced by X-rays," Snell's negative mutation data were almost entirely ignored by his contemporary and subsequent radiation genetics/mutation researchers. This raises questions concerning how the apparent lack of interest in Snell's negative findings helped Muller professionally, including his success in using his fruit fly data to influence hereditary and cancer risk assessment and to obtain the Nobel Prize.

How self-interest and deception led to the adoption of the linear non-threshold dose response (LNT) model for cancer risk assessment

This paper clarifies scientific contributions and deceptive/self-serving decisions of William L. Russell and Liane Russell that led to the adoption of the linear non-threshold (LNT) model for cancer risk assessment by the US EPA. By deliberately failing to report an extremely large cluster of mutations in the control group of their first experiment, and thereby greatly suppressing its mutation rate, the Russells incorrectly claimed that the male mouse was 15-fold more susceptible to ionizing-radiation-induced gene mutations as compared with fruit flies. This self-serving error not only propelled their research program into one of great prominence, but it also promoted the LNT-based doubling dose (DD) concept in radiation genetics/cancer risk assessment, by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) I Genetics Panel (1956). The DD concept became a central element in their recommendation that regulatory agencies switch from a threshold to an LNT model. This error occurred because of a decision by W. Russell not to report that a large cluster of control group mutations found in an experiment for which preliminary results were reported in 1951. This failure to report that cluster and similar clusters continued throughout the careers of the Russells, resulting in massive overestimation of low dose radiation risks supporting the LNT. The Russell database and the repeated claim that those data show that there is no threshold dose rate for mutation in irradiated mouse stem-cell spermatogonia, have provided mechanistic validation supporting the epidemiological LNT hypothesis for radiation-induced leukemias and cancers. This reanalysis supports the threshold model for both males and females, thereby rebutting epidemiological extrapolations from the NAS and EPA claiming support for the LNT hypothesis for cancer risk assessment. The implications of the Russell errors/deceptions, how/why they occurred, and their impact upon society are enormous and need to be addressed by scientific/regulatory agencies, affecting regulatory and litigation activities.

ICRP PUBLICATION 153 Approved by the Commission in September 2022

Veterinary use of radiation in the diagnosis, management, and treatment of disease has expanded and diversified, as have the corresponding radiological protection concerns. Radiological exposure of personnel involved in veterinary procedures and, where applicable, members of the public providing assistance (e.g. owners or handlers) has always been included within the system of radiological protection. Veterinary practice is now addressed explicitly as the modern complexities associated with this practice warrant dedicated consideration, and there is a need to clarify and strengthen the application of radiological protection principles in this area. The Commission recommends that the system of radiological protection should be applied in veterinary practice principally for the protection of humans, but with explicit attention to the protection of exposed animals. Additionally, consideration should be given to the risk of potential contamination of the environment associated with applications of nuclear medicine in veterinary practice. This publication focuses primarily on justification and optimisation in veterinary practice, and sets the scene for more detailed guidance to follow in future Recommendations. It is intended for a wide-ranging audience, including radiological protection professionals, veterinary staff, students, education and training providers, and members of the public, as an introduction to radiological protection in veterinary practice.© 2022 ICRP. Published by SAGE.

The History of Transgenesis

A transgenic mouse carries within its genome an artificial DNA construct (transgene) that is deliberately introduced by an experimentalist. These animals are widely used to understand gene function and protein function. When addressing the history of transgenic mouse technology, it is apparent that a number of basic science research areas laid the groundwork for success. These include reproductive science, genetics and molecular biology, and micromanipulation and microscopy equipment. From reproductive physiology came applications on how to optimize mouse breeding, how to superovulate mice to produce zygotes for DNA microinjection or preimplantation embryos for combination with embryonic stem (ES) cells, and how to return zygotes and embryos to a pseudopregnant surrogate dam for gestation and birth. From developmental biology, it was learned how to micromanipulate embryos for morula aggregation and blastocyst microinjection and how to establish germline competent ES cells. From genetics came the foundational principles governing the inheritance of genes, the interactions of gene products, and an understanding of the phenotypic consequences of genetic mutations. From molecular biology came a panoply of tools and reagents that are used to clone DNA transgenes, to detect the presence of transgenes, to assess gene expression by measuring transcription, and to detect proteins in cells and tissues. Technical advances in light microscopes, micromanipulators, micropipette pullers, and ancillary equipment made it possible for experimentalists to insert thin glass needles into zygotes or embryos under controlled conditions to inject DNA solutions or ES cells. To fully discuss the breadth of contributions of these numerous scientific disciplines to a comprehensive history of transgenic science is beyond the scope of this work. Examples will be used to illustrate scientific developments central to the foundation of transgenic technology and that are in use today.

A History of Mouse Genetics: From Fancy Mice to Mutations in Every Gene

The laboratory mouse has become the model organism of choice in numerous areas of biological and biomedical research, including the study of congenital birth defects. The appeal of mice for these experimental studies stems from the similarities between the physiology, anatomy, and reproduction of these small mammals with our own, but it is also based on a number of practical reasons: mice are easy to maintain in a laboratory environment, are incredibly prolific, and have a relatively short reproductive cycle. Another compelling reason for choosing mice as research subjects is the number of tools and resources that have been developed after more than a century of working with these small rodents in laboratory environments. As will become obvious from the reading of the different chapters in this book, research in mice has already helped uncover many of the genes and processes responsible for congenital birth malformations and human diseases. In this chapter, we will provide an overview of the methods, scientific advances, and serendipitous circumstances that have made these discoveries possible, with a special emphasis on how the use of genetics has propelled scientific progress in mouse research and paved the way for future discoveries.

The mutagenesis moonshot: The propitious beginnings of the environmental mutagenesis and genomics society

A mutagenesis moonshot addressing the influence of the environment on our genetic wellbeing was launched just 2 months before astronauts landed on the moon. Its impetus included the discovery that X-rays (Muller HJ. [1927]: Science 64:84-87) and chemicals (Auerbach and Robson. [1946]: Nature 157:302) were germ-cell mutagens, the introduction of a growing number of untested chemicals into the environment after World War II, and an increasing awareness of the role of environmental pollution on human health. Due to mounting concern from influential scientists that germ-cell mutagens might be ubiquitous in the environment, Alexander Hollaender and colleagues founded in 1969 the Environmental Mutagen Society (EMS), now the Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomics Society (EMGS); Frits Sobels founded the European EMS in 1970. As Fred de Serres noted, such societies were necessary because protecting populations from environmental mutagens could not be addressed by existing scientific societies, and new multidisciplinary alliances were required to spearhead this movement. The nascent EMS gathered policy makers and scientists from government, industry, and academia who became advocates for laws requiring genetic toxicity testing of pesticides and drugs and helped implement those laws. They created an electronic database of the mutagenesis literature; established a peer-reviewed journal; promoted basic and applied research in DNA repair and mutagenesis; and established training programs that expanded the science worldwide. Despite these successes, one objective remains unfulfilled: identification of human germ-cell mutagens. After 50 years, the voyage continues, and a vibrant EMGS is needed to bring the mission to its intended target of protecting populations from genetic hazards. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 61:8-24, 2020. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Twenty Years of Reflections in Mutation Research

Reflections is a component of Mutation Research Reviews devoted to historical and philosophical themes pertaining to the subject of mutation. Reflections was initiated in 1999 and has included a broad array of topics centered on mutation research, but overlapping other scientific fields and touching upon history, sociology, politics, philosophy and ethics. This commentary offers an editor's reflections on the 44 papers in the Reflections series, including the people who contributed to the series and the topics that they discussed.

Why Genetic Effects of Radiation are Observed in Mice but not in Humans

Genetic effects from radiation have been observed in a number of species to date. However, observations in humans are nearly nonexistent. In this review, possible reasons for the paucity of positive observations in humans are discussed. Briefly, it appears likely that radiation sensitivity for the induction of mutations varies among different genes, and that the specific genes that were used in the past with the specific locus test utilizing millions of mice may have simply been very responsive to radiation. In support of this notion, recent studies targeting the whole genome to detect copy number variations (deletions and duplications) in offspring derived from irradiated spermatogonia indicated that the mutation induction rate per genome is surprisingly lower than what would have been expected from previous results with specific locus tests, even in the mouse. This finding leads us to speculate that the lack of evidence for the induction of germline mutations in humans is not due to any kind of species differences between humans and mice, but rather to the lack of highly responsive genes in humans, which could be used for effective mutation screening purposes. Examples of such responsive genes are the mouse coat color genes, but in human studies many more genes with higher response rates are required because the number of offspring examined and the radiation doses received are smaller than in mouse studies. Unfortunately, such genes have not yet been found in humans. These results suggest that radiation probably induces germline mutations in humans but that the mutation induction rate is likely to be much lower than has been estimated from past specific locus studies in mice. Whole genome sequencing studies will likely shed light on this point in the near future.

The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2. How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT

This paper reveals that nearly 25 years after the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) I Committee (1972) used Russell's dose-rate data to support the adoption of the linear-no-threshold (LNT) dose response model for genetic and cancer risk assessment, Russell acknowledged a significant under-reporting of the mutation rate of the historical control group. This error, which was unknown to BEIR I, had profound implications, leading it to incorrectly adopt the LNT model, which was a decision that profoundly changed the course of risk assessment for radiation and chemicals to the present.

Contributions from Women to the Radiation Sciences: A Brief History

Contributions from men to radiation science are well known, particularly the early contributions from such luminaries as William Roentgen, James Chadwick, Niels Bohr, Robert Oppenheimer, and the like. Although not ignored per se, beyond Marie Curie and Lise Meitner, the contributions of female nuclear scientists are not as widely recognized. This paper provides a concise historical summary of contributions to radiation science from the discovery of radiation through the current status of international leadership within the radiation protection community. Beyond lead scientists and academics, this paper also considers support personnel as well as the role women have played in the advancement of radiation epidemiology.