Literature DB >> 14989265

Are we sure we know how to measure 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine in DNA from human cells?

Andrew R Collins1, Jean Cadet, Lennart Möller, Henrik E Poulsen, Jose Viña.   

Abstract

The most commonly measured marker of oxidative DNA damage is 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine (8-oxoGua) or its deoxyribonucleoside (8-oxodGuo). Published estimates of the concentration of 8-oxoGua/8-oxodGuo in DNA of normal human cells vary over a range of three orders of magnitude. Analysis by chromatographic methods (GC-MS, HPLC with electrochemical detection (ECD) or HPLC-MS/MS) is beset by the problem of adventitious oxidation of guanine during sample preparation. An alternative approach, based on the use of the DNA repair enzyme formamidopyrimidine DNA N-glycosylase (FPG) to make breaks in the DNA at sites of the oxidised base, gives much lower values. ESCODD, the European Standards Committee on Oxidative DNA Damage, has been testing the ability of different laboratories using a variety of methods to measure 8-oxoGua in standard samples of 8-oxodGuo, calf thymus DNA, pig liver, oligonucleotides, and HeLa cells, and in lymphocytes isolated from blood of volunteers. HPLC-ECD is capable of measuring 8-oxodGuo induced experimentally in calf thymus DNA or HeLa cells with high accuracy. However, there is no sign of consensus over the background level of this damage, suggesting that, even though standard extraction procedures were used, variable oxidation of Gua is still occurring. GC-MS failed to detect a dose response of induced 8-oxoGua and cannot be regarded as a reliable method for measuring low levels of damage. HPLC-MS/MS as yet has not proved capable of measuring low levels of oxidative DNA damage. FPG-based methods seem to be less prone to the artefact of additional oxidation. Although they can be used quantitatively, they require careful calibration and standardisation if they are to be used in human biomonitoring. The background level of DNA oxidation in normal human cells is likely to be around 0.3-4.2 8-oxoGua per 10(6) Gua. An effort should be made to develop alternative, validated methods for estimating oxidative DNA damage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14989265     DOI: 10.1016/j.abb.2003.12.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Biochem Biophys        ISSN: 0003-9861            Impact factor:   4.013


  66 in total

1.  Direct analysis in real time (DART) mass spectrometry of nucleotides and nucleosides: elucidation of a novel fragment [C5H5O]+ and its in-source adducts.

Authors:  Matthew Curtis; Mikael A Minier; Priyanka Chitranshi; O David Sparkman; Patrick R Jones; Liang Xue
Journal:  J Am Soc Mass Spectrom       Date:  2010-04-07       Impact factor: 3.109

Review 2.  Measuring reactive species and oxidative damage in vivo and in cell culture: how should you do it and what do the results mean?

Authors:  Barry Halliwell; Matthew Whiteman
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 8.739

3.  HPLC Measurement of the DNA Oxidation Biomarker, 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2'-deoxyguanosine, in Cultured Cells and Animal Tissues.

Authors:  Nikolai L Chepelev; Dean A Kennedy; Remi Gagné; Taryn White; Alexandra S Long; Carole L Yauk; Paul A White
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2015-08-01       Impact factor: 1.355

4.  Urinary DNA adductomics - A novel approach for exposomics.

Authors:  Marcus S Cooke; Chiung-Wen Hu; Yuan-Jhe Chang; Mu-Rong Chao
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2018-11-02       Impact factor: 9.621

Review 5.  8-Hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine as a marker of oxidative DNA damage related to occupational and environmental exposures.

Authors:  A Pilger; H W Rüdiger
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2006-05-10       Impact factor: 3.015

6.  Reconciliation of chemical, enzymatic, spectroscopic and computational data to assign the absolute configuration of the DNA base lesion spiroiminodihydantoin.

Authors:  Aaron M Fleming; Anita M Orendt; Yanan He; Judy Zhu; Rina K Dukor; Cynthia J Burrows
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2013-11-21       Impact factor: 15.419

7.  DNA damage in normally and prematurely aged mice.

Authors:  Alexander Y Maslov; Shireen Ganapathi; Maaike Westerhof; Wilber Quispe-Tintaya; Ryan R White; Bennett Van Houten; Erwin Reiling; Martijn E T Dollé; Harry van Steeg; Paul Hasty; Jan H J Hoeijmakers; Jan Vijg
Journal:  Aging Cell       Date:  2013-04-24       Impact factor: 9.304

Review 8.  Antioxidant vitamins and cancer risk: is oxidative damage to DNA a relevant biomarker?

Authors:  Steffen Loft; Peter Møller; Marcus S Cooke; Rafal Rozalski; Ryszard Olinski
Journal:  Eur J Nutr       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 5.614

9.  Pyrimidine base damage is increased in women with BRCA mutations.

Authors:  Edwin E Budzinski; Helen B Patrzyc; Jean B Dawidzik; Harold G Freund; Peter Frederick; Heidi E Godoy; Nicoleta C Voian; Kunle Odunsi; Harold C Box
Journal:  Cancer Lett       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 8.679

Review 10.  Markers of oxidant stress that are clinically relevant in aging and age-related disease.

Authors:  Kimberly D Jacob; Nicole Noren Hooten; Andrzej R Trzeciak; Michele K Evans
Journal:  Mech Ageing Dev       Date:  2013-02-18       Impact factor: 5.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.