Literature DB >> 21237724

Validation of a fully automated COMET assay: 1.75 million single cells measured over a 5 year period.

Albert Rosenberger1, Ute Rössler, Sabine Hornhardt, Wiebke Sauter, Heike Bickeböller, H-Erich Wichmann, Maria Gomolka.   

Abstract

The COMET assay is recognized as a rapid and sensitive method in quantifying radiation induced DNA damage. We investigated the distorting influence of endogenous, assay-inherent factors onto base (single cell level) and primary outcome measures (experimental/slide level), such as olive tail moment (OTM) and percentage DNA in the tail (%tail-DNA). From 2003 to 2008, we performed the assay on lymphocytes isolated from the blood samples of 355 lung cancer patients, 170 controls, and 610 relatives, as well as one single reference individual, repeated 170 times. In total, the data from 10,016 single experiments containing around 1,750,000 cells have been included in this study. This is the first time that the endogenous variability of the COMET assay has been validated systematically on such a huge data set over a 5 year period. Assuming that the reference sample reflects assay specific white noise, we estimated a proportion of 7-95% of the variability of the outcome measures due to assay variation (white noise) depending on parameter, exposure level, and study group. The proportion of white noise was largest for the initial radiation damage. The specific endogenous factors considered attribute to 14.8% of the total variability in the primary outcome measurements of the OTM and 6.9% of the %tail-DNA. OTM turns out to be a sensitive parameter to detect variation, but is also more susceptible to disturbance caused by endogenous factors than %tail-DNA. To reduce the experimental variability in COMET assays, we recommend a highly standardized operation protocol as well as inspecting and/or adjusting the primary outcome measures according to endogenous factors before calculating secondary outcome measures, e.g. DNA repair capacity (DRC) or testing statistical inference. A human reference (HR) sample is also useful to inspect homogeneity in the temporal progression of long lasting investigations, but not for calibrating primary outcome measurements.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21237724     DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2010.12.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  DNA Repair (Amst)        ISSN: 1568-7856


  8 in total

1.  Short-term, supra-physiological rhGH administration induces transient DNA damage in peripheral lymphocytes of healthy women.

Authors:  C Fantini; P Sgrò; M Pittaluga; A de Perini; I Dimauro; A Sartorio; D Caporossi; L Di Luigi
Journal:  J Endocrinol Invest       Date:  2017-02-16       Impact factor: 4.256

Review 2.  DNA repair: from genome maintenance to biomarker and therapeutic target.

Authors:  Shadia Jalal; Jennifer N Earley; John J Turchi
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2011-09-09       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  Factors influencing heterogeneity of radiation-induced DNA-damage measured by the alkaline comet assay.

Authors:  Clemens Seidel; Christine Lautenschläger; Jürgen Dunst; Arndt-Christian Müller
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2012-04-20       Impact factor: 3.481

4.  Natural Cubic Spline Regression Modeling Followed by Dynamic Network Reconstruction for the Identification of Radiation-Sensitivity Gene Association Networks from Time-Course Transcriptome Data.

Authors:  Agata Michna; Herbert Braselmann; Martin Selmansberger; Anne Dietz; Julia Hess; Maria Gomolka; Sabine Hornhardt; Nils Blüthgen; Horst Zitzelsberger; Kristian Unger
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Abundance and genetic damage of barn swallows from Fukushima.

Authors:  A Bonisoli-Alquati; K Koyama; D J Tedeschi; W Kitamura; H Sukuzi; S Ostermiller; E Arai; A P Møller; T A Mousseau
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Evaluation of different biomarkers to predict individual radiosensitivity in an inter-laboratory comparison--lessons for future studies.

Authors:  Burkhard Greve; Tobias Bölling; Susanne Amler; Ute Rössler; Maria Gomolka; Claudia Mayer; Odilia Popanda; Kristin Dreffke; Astrid Rickinger; Eberhard Fritz; Friederike Eckardt-Schupp; Christina Sauerland; Herbert Braselmann; Wiebke Sauter; Thomas Illig; Dorothea Riesenbeck; Stefan Könemann; Normann Willich; Simone Mörtl; Hans Theodor Eich; Peter Schmezer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-23       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Heritability of radiation response in lung cancer families.

Authors:  Albert Rosenberger; Ute Rössler; Sabine Hornhardt; Wiebke Sauter; Heike Bickeböller; H-Erich Wichmann; Maria Gomolka
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2012-03-29       Impact factor: 4.096

8.  A rapid assay for measuring nucleotide excision repair by oligonucleotide retrieval.

Authors:  Jiang-Cheng Shen; Edward J Fox; Eun Hyun Ahn; Lawrence A Loeb
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.