Detecting Radiation Exposure with a Blood Test

An RNA-based assay recently shown to work in monkeys could help triage victims of nuclear disasters 

Exclusion zone near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, February 26, 2016.

Christopher Furlong Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

After a nuclear disaster like the one in Fukushima, Japan, in 2011, first responders need to quickly measure radiation exposure en masse and decide who requires urgent treatment. Existing tests are fast and accurate—but they rely on sophisticated laboratories, expensive machinery and meticulous work, says Dipanjan Chowdhury, a radiation oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. “We don't have copious amounts of radiation drugs available” in such a situation, he adds. “So how do we decide who gets them?”

To address this question, Chowdhury and his colleagues are developing a simple assay that responders could deploy in the field with limited expertise or equipment. The test, described in March in Science Translational Medicine, detects levels of molecules called microRNAs (miRNAs) in blood and other bodily fluids. The same researchers had previously identified certain miRNAs whose levels rise or fall in mice exposed to radiation.

Chowdhury's team members found that this radiation signature also exists in monkeys (which are the best lab proxies for humans). Their study identifies seven miRNAs that fluctuate in both mice and macaques exposed to radiation. The monkeys were given lethal doses of 5.8, 6.5 or 7.2 grays of whole-body radiation, similar to levels inhaled by Fukushima workers (all the animals received “lethal” doses, but only some resulted in death). Together three of these miRNAs—miR-133b, miR-215 and miR-375—can indicate with 100 percent accuracy whether a macaque has encountered radiation, and two—miR-30a and miR-126—can predict whether the exposure will be fatal. The signature appears within 24 hours of exposure and can be measured using polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a common technique. “Based on the ingredients and the complexity, the miRNA test should be significantly cheaper than any existing test,” Chowdhury says.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The findings in nonhuman primates are encouraging, says Nicholas Dainiak, director of the Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site at the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, who was not involved in the study. Dainiak is skeptical, however, that the test will outperform the gold standard metric for radiation exposure: the dicentric chromosome assay (DCA), which requires technical expertise and carefully calibrated equipment. “Every time a new test comes along, and you compare it with the DCA, it typically fails,” Dainiak says.

Chowdhury has held informal talks with companies that are interested in creating a rapid diagnostic kit for radiation. “When we did this in mice, people said, 'We've seen a lot of stuff in mice that never pans out in primates,'” Chowdhury says. “Well, this seems to be panning out in primates.”

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe