Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 16, 2026

Simultaneous Two-photon In Vivo Imaging of Synaptic Inputs and Postsynaptic Targets in the Mouse Retrosplenial Cortex
Published on: March 13, 2016
Timescale of FLASH Sparing Effect Determined by Varying Temporal Split of Dose Delivery in Mice
Jacob P Sunnerberg1, David I Hunter1, Austin M Sloop1
1Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Purpose:
To determine the timescale for ultra high dose rate (UHDR) radiation delivery that dictates FLASH normal tissue sparing and elucidate its relationship to in vivo oxygen dynamics. A split-dose experiment was used to determine the transition time below which the observation of the FLASH sparing effect is preserved.
Methods And Materials:
A 25 Gy dose was split into 2 deliveries (12.5 Gy), with varied interruption times. Albino B6 mice received flank skin irradiation in 8 groups: single-beam UHDR (25 Gy at 415 Gy/s), single-beam conventional dose rate (CDR) (25 Gy at 0.15 Gy/s), or split-beam delivery with 2 lower-dose UHDR beams (12.5 Gy at 415 Gy/s) separated by 0.1, 1, 5, 15, 25, or 120 seconds. Skin damage was scored daily for 31 days, with mixed-effects analysis comparing damage progression across cohorts. Real-time tissue pO2 was monitored using the phosphorescence-lifetime probe, Oxyphor PdG4. Radiolytic oxygen consumption per unit dose (gO2) and reoxygenation rates were quantified.
Results:
Single-beam UHDR significantly spared skin versus CDR. In split-dose groups, this sparing effect showed a transition at longer interbeam intervals. Damage progression remained significantly lower than CDR and comparable to single-beam UHDR (P > 0.16) for interruptions <15 seconds. Longer intervals progressively lost tissue sparing. Oximetry indicated an average tissue reoxygenation lifetime of 7.7 ± 1.1 seconds. At the delivery of the second beam, pO2 remained lower when interbeam times were shorter than the reoxygenation period, but recovered fully for longer interruptions. The gO2 values correlated with baseline tissue pO2.
Conclusions:
Observation of the FLASH sparing effect requires delivery within a critical temporal window that is similar to the timescale of tissue reoxygenation kinetics. The transition time for loss of the FLASH sparing effect in skin roughly corresponds to a diffusion timescale for oxygen, from capillaries to the cells. Although not conclusively demonstrating a mechanism, this unique finding supports the likelihood that local oxygen depletion or consumption underlies the FLASH tissue sparing effect observed in vivo, with important implications for clinical implementation and the timescale needed for multibeam FLASH radiation therapy.

