Possible Preventives That May Decrease the Negative Effects of Radiation on the Heart

With the possibility of radiation exposure from terrorist attacks or accidents, the need for radiation research is needed. In simple terms, our research has shown the negative effects of radiation on the cardiovascular system. Our study involved a mouse model, in which the results found from the mice were effectively comparable to the effects appearing in humans. We used a LD50 (lethal dose that kills about 50%) dose of radiation when we radiated the mice. We noticed a peak in detrimental effects in the loss of cells that line the blood vessels at two weeks, and interestingly, we also found an increase of iron present in tissue and serum. We have been studying the use of two different iron inhibitors to try to decrease the amount of iron in the tissue to see if there would be any effect on the tissue thickness. Recently, we found that the data suggest that somehow the increase of iron is related to thinning of the arterial tissue! This recent discovery is exciting because it shows that we may be on the right track toward helping create a radiation preventative medication. One matter to keep in mind is that our study has involved such a high dose of radiation that is not commonly prevalent; however, that high of a level of radiation may occur through accumulative radiation used to battle cancer. This research may prove to be beneficial to those at risk of high radiation exposure.

I believe that the word “research” automatically implies a difficult endeavor. However, it was a contrast to what I formally thought research would entail. One of the lessons I learned early on was that in the beginning mistakes are inevitable and mistakes are detrimental… Any minor mistake could likely cause the whole procedure to go down the drain (literally). One specific error that had occurred in lab happened on the very final step. My partner and I were using a multiple-micro-pipette to fill a series of wells that would eventually read the concentration level. However, we failed to remember to check the calibrator value (the calibrator value is the number shown on the side of the pipette and is easy to adjust to the amount that you need to use) and the volume increased from about 100 to 200 microliters. Anyone who has done research knows that that difference was huge. Not only did we run out of the solution before we could fill the last two rows of the wells, but all the other wells’ concentrations were off…Blood rushed from our faces, as we realized what had happened. Thankfully, our Principal Investigator (PI) was so patient and understanding, even though we had completely ruined days’ worth of research. One saying that our PI would repeat is, “After you make a mistake, you won’t ever make it again.” Regardless of the seemingly simplicity of some steps, I’ve begun to understand the extent of that statement because when you make a mistake you feel nauseous and learn to be more conscious of each step.

So yes, there were mistakes and that has caused me to be more appreciative of lab work and much more careful. But there were also “ah-ha!” moments that were so joyous! The feeling of finding out game-changing results after tedious, multi-procedural projects, made up for everything. It’s been wonderful digging deep in other research articles to come up with possible studies to apply to our research. One particular beauty that comes with research is that you are looking into things that no one has been able to figure out before! In front of you lies a puzzle that looks impossible to put together, but slowly yet surely, the pieces begin to line up. Soon others get on board and offer advice on which puzzle pieces may fit more properly, and then a picture begins to form.

Day-to-Day of a Scientist

Starting off the day was relaxing, as we would begin to prepare for a busy day. Our PI made extra coffee for those in the lab, providing a social aspect of community amongst us. I worked closely alongside another undergraduate and a high school student, along with my PI. My PI and the other undergraduate (as she had been in the lab for a few years because of a local STEM program) were extremely helpful at explaining what we were doing. It felt like we were a team, all working together for the good of others. From periods of seriousness to times of laughter, friendships bloomed. In the university lab setting it was a much more intense atmosphere struggling to finish a three hour (+) lab before your next class. Usually, you wouldn’t finish, and you would have to work on it later in the evening. I was surprised to find that even though I was in the lab for 8 to 9 hours a day, it didn’t feel nearly that long. Mistakes were more crucial in the research lab setting than in a lab for class; however, the benefit of the results of the experiment were more satisfying. You didn’t always know what the end results would be, and those results would affect what you were going to focus on next. I absolutely loved the experience of research because what we have been studying has meaning and will likely one day benefit others! It’s been a rewarding summer. I came in struggling to understand most of the abstract to desiring to learn even more than I could have ever imagined.

Abbey Russell is a junior majoring in Biology at the Taylor University in Upland, IN. She is a 2018 Short-Term Research Education Program to Increase Diversity in Health-Related Research (STRIDE) Fellow working in Dr. Steven Jeffrey Miller’s lab at the Indianapolis University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, IN. Abbey’s fellowship is funded by the APS and a grant from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) (Grant #1 R25 HL115473-01). After graduation, Abbey plans to pursue a career as a medical physician or surgeon who also does academia research.