Response to letter to the editor “Genetic biomonitoring of professionals occupationally exposed to ionizing radiation: Theoretical concepts for scientific debate”

Abstract

We would like to thank the journal for the opportunity to respond to the issues raised in the letter to the editor "Genetic biomonitoring of professionals occupationally exposed to ionizing radiation: Theoretical concepts for scientific debate" and to clarify aspects of our methodology in relation to these concerns. We would also like to thank the letter's authors for their interest in our work and for taking the time to express their valuable points of view. First, in their letter to the editor, the authors raise concerns about the staining procedure used. In this regard, we agree that the use of stains like Giemsa in oral mucosa cells has been questioned by researchers like Bonassi et al. (2011) (the study referenced by the letter's authors); however, this study does not bring comparative results with the use of eosin methylene blue according to Leishman. In fact, the same study does not rule out the use of simple staining techniques, such as May-Grünwald. Even so, recent studies, as mentioned by Antoniazzi et al. (2018) and other studies (Vilas Boas et al., 2018), showed promising and reliable results with the Giemsa staining technique. The staining procedure used in the study by da Silva Júnior et al. (2020), a solution of eosin methylene blue according to Leishman, is an appropriate cocktail for differential visualization of both cytoplasm and cell nucleus. Korsakov et al. (2015) used the solution of eosin methylene blue according to Leishman for staining oral cells in their study that recommended the use of oral epithelium cells as an environmental indicator.

Response to letter to the editor: Comment on “Mutagenic damage among bronchiectasis patients attending in the pulmonology sector of a hospital in southern Brazil”

“…Regarding the content of the letter, de Moraes Malinverni et al 1 comment on the limitations of using the staining technique with eosin-methylene blue according to Leishman. This point has already been discussed elsewhere 2 , and we reinforce here that the study cited by the authors of the letter to the editor 3 did not mention staining using eosin-methylene blue according to Leishman. Furthermore, the study itself does not rule out the possibility of using simple staining techniques such as May-Grünwald.…”

“…The technique employed by Votto Olmedo et al 4 is an appropriate mixture for the differential visualization of both the cytoplasm and the cell nucleus and is recommended in the study by Korsakov et al 5 for use in assessing mutagenicity in oral cells. For a complementary reading in relation to possible cellular artifacts, we recommend da Silva Júnior et al 2 who already discuss these same aspects brought up here.…”