This Special Report presents a description of Geant4-DNA user applications dedicated to the simulation of track structures (TS) in liquid water and associated physical quantities (e.g., range, stopping power, mean free path.). These example applications are included in the Geant4 Monte Carlo toolkit and are available in open access. Each application is described and comparisons to recent international recommendations are shown (e.g., ICRU, MIRD), when available. The influence of physics models available in Geant4-DNA for the simulation of electron interactions in liquid water is discussed. Thanks to these applications, the authors show that the most recent sets of physics models available in Geant4-DNA (the so-called "option4" and "option 6" sets) enable more accurate simulation of stopping powers, dose point kernels, and W-values in liquid water, than the default set of models ("option 2") initially provided in Geant4-DNA. They also serve as reference applications for Geant4-DNA users interested in TS simulations.@en

We extended a generic Geant4 application for mechanistic DNA damage simulations to an Escherichia coli cell geometry, finding electron damage yields and proton damage yields largely in line with experimental results. Depending on the simulation of radical scavenging, electrons double strand breaks (DSBs) yields range from 0.004 to 0.010 DSB Gy−1 Mbp−1, while protons have yields ranging from 0.004 DSB Gy−1 Mbp−1 at low LETs and with strict assumptions concerning scavenging, up to 0.020 DSB Gy−1 Mbp−1 at high LETs and when scavenging is weakest. Mechanistic DNA damage simulations can provide important limits on the extent to which physical processes can impact biology in low background experiments. We demonstrate the utility of these studies for low dose radiation biology calculating that in E. coli, the median rate at which the radiation background induces double strand breaks is 2.8 × 10−8 DSB day−1, significantly less than the mutation rate per generation measured in E. coli, which is on the order of 10−3.@en

Mechanistic modelling of DNA damage in Monte Carlo simulations is highly sensitive to the parameters that define DNA damage. In this work, we use a simple testing geometry to investigate how different choices of physics models and damage model parameters can change the estimation of DNA damage in a mechanistic DNA damage simulation built in Geant4-DNA. The choice of physics model can lead to variations by up to a factor of two in the yield of physically induced strand breaks, and the parameters that determine scavenging, and physical and chemical single strand break induction can have even larger consequences. Using low energy electrons as primary particles, a variety of parameters are tested in this geometry in order to arrive at a parameter set consistent with past simulation studies. We find that the modelling of scavenging can play an important role in determining results, and speculate that high-scavenging regimes, where only chemical radicals within 1 nm of DNA are simulated, could provide a good means of testing mechanistic DNA simulations.@en

We report on the recent progress within the Geant4 electromagnetic physics subpackages. Several new interfaces and models recently introduced are already used in LHC applications and may be useful for any type of simulation. Significant developments were carried out to improve the user interface, develop models of single and multiple scattering, and validate high energy models. Part of these developments are included in the Geant4 10.2 release and the full set are available in the new version 10.3 of December, 2016.@en

The authors regret having incorrectly written in equation (7) that the fraction of surviving cells (SF) is obtained using the natural logarithm of the negative value of the number of lethal lesions Lf. The natural logarithm must be replaced by the exponential function as follows: [Formula presented] Although the equation is incorrectly written in the paper, its correct expression has been used in the results of the analysis shown in Figure 4. This error has no impact on the other results and conclusions of the paper. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.@en