← BioTransfer GEO Dataset Finder
GEO series

Differential impact of FLASH and conventional radiotherapy on a pivotal metabolic organ: White Adipose Tissue

GSE326864 Mus musculus (mouse) RNA-seq (gene expression) 10 samples Submitted 2026/04/09 Platform GPL34290
At a glance

RNA-seq (gene expression) · mouse · 10 samples

What it is
RNA-seq (gene expression)Gene activity measured by sequencing. The summary does not mention single-cell work, so this is most likely bulk: one average per sample, the usual starting point for comparing groups.
Organism
Mus musculus (mouse)
Samples
10 samples: 4 × Inguinal Subcutaneus White Adipose Tissue, 70 days post 33.3 Gy FLASH irradiation, vs 3 × Inguinal Subcutaneus White Adipose Tissue, 70 days not irradiated, vs 3 × Inguinal Subcutaneus White Adipose Tissue, 70 days post 33.3 Gy CONV irradiation,Groups are read from the sample names, not from the paper. Check the list below.
Data you can get
A processed table (series matrix) and supplementary files from NCBI; the raw sequencing reads from ENA. Which of these hold counts depends on the study, so check the file list.
Summary (written by the submitters)
Subcutaneous white adipose tissue (scWAT), a key metabolic and endocrine organ, is inevitably exposed during radiotherapy (RT). Although RT is a cornerstone of cancer treatment, its clinical use is limited by damage to surrounding healthy tissues. Ultra-high-dose-rate FLASH-RT has emerged as a promising approach that preserves tumor control while reducing normal tissue toxicity.
Read the full summary ↓
Notably, conventional (CONV) RT has been associated with long-term metabolic dysfunction and white adipose tissue (WAT) impairment, particularly following childhood exposure; however, the impact of FLASH-RT on WAT remains unknown. Here, we compared the effects of FLASH- and CONV-RT on adipocyte function and scWAT homeostasis, integrating molecular, structural, and functional analyses. Experiments were conducted using the human SGBS preadipocyte/adipocyte cell line and a mouse model of proximal hind limb irradiation, employing a dedicated linear accelerator capable of delivering both modalities. In vivo analyses were performed 70 days after irradiation. In vitro, RT impaired adipogenic differentiation in a dose-dependent manner, with a relative sparing effect of FLASH-RT at 4–8 Gy, while mature adipocytes exhibited radioresistance with partial protection at 8 Gy. In vivo, both irradiation modalities reduced fat mass without affecting body weight, with a more pronounced loss following CONV-RT. Transcriptomic profiling of inguinal scWAT by RNA sequencing revealed a marked divergence between treatments. CONV-RT induced extensive transcriptional reprogramming of scWAT. Upregulated genes were enriched in inflammatory and immune-related pathways, as well as processes associated with chemotaxis, oxidative stress, and macrophage recruitment. Conversely, downregulated genes were linked to neuronal function, angiogenesis, and differentiation-related pathways, indicating a compromised neurovascular and adipogenic environment. In contrast, FLASH-RT elicited minimal transcriptional changes, with only three genes differentially expressed and no significant enrichment of biological processes. These molecular findings were supported by histological and ultrastructural analyses, which showed increased cellular damage, vacuolization, lipid spill-over, and reduced PLIN1 expression, predominantly in CONV-treated mice. In conclusion, our data suggest that WAT homeostasis is highly sensitive to conventional RT, which induces extensive transcriptional remodeling associated with inflammation and tissue dysfunction, whereas FLASH-RT largely preserves the scWAT transcriptome, tissue structure, and function, supporting its potential to mitigate long-term metabolic complications in cancer survivors.
This dataset
Download · which file do I need?

Direct links to NCBI and ENA, no account and no request form. Pick by what you want to do: take the small processed table to look, the supplementary files to re-analyse, or the original raw data to start over.

1 · Just have a look

Processed table

The series matrix: one table of values per sample as the submitters processed it. The smallest download, and it opens in Excel or R. Start here to see what the data look like.

2 · Re-analyse it

Supplementary files

The count tables and other files the authors uploaded. Take only the samples you need, or the whole study as GSE326864_RAW.tar (it can run to tens of gigabytes).

3 · Start from the raw reads

Raw sequencing reads

The original FASTQ files, straight from the sequencer, held at ENA. Large, and you align them yourself, so only choose this if you need to re-process the study from scratch.

What the files usually look like: For RNA-seq the counts are usually a table among the supplementary files (look for 'counts', 'expression', 'FPKM' or 'TPM' in the file name). The series matrix of a sequencing study is sometimes nearly empty.

Also filed as BioProject PRJNA1447501 and SRA study SRP688937. Searching any of these in the dataset finder brings you back here.

Study design
4 × Inguinal Subcutaneus White Adipose Tissue, 70 days post 33.3 Gy FLASH irradiation, vs 3 × Inguinal Subcutaneus White Adipose Tissue, 70 days not irradiated, vs 3 × Inguinal Subcutaneus White Adipose Tissue, 70 days post 33.3 Gy CONV irradiation,

Supports a between-group comparison across 10 samples.

How we read this: 3 replicated groups read from 10 sample titles; they account for 10 of them. These groups are guessed from the sample names, not taken from the paper, so check them against the sample list below before relying on them.

Samples in this study
Datasets on a similar topic

Search all mouse RNA-seq datasets in GEO →

Share this dataset

Metadata from NCBI GEO, cached and refreshed periodically — the NCBI page above is authoritative. Downloads link straight to NCBI/ENA; nothing is proxied through BioTransfer.