Literature DB >> 21645630

Towards a more reliable comet assay: optimising agarose concentration, unwinding time and electrophoresis conditions.

Amaya Azqueta1, Kristine B Gutzkow, Gunnar Brunborg, Andrew R Collins.   

Abstract

The comet assay is now the method of choice for measuring most kinds of DNA damage in cells. However, due to the lack of a standardised protocol inter-laboratory comparisons are of limited value. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how small changes in comet-assay variables may significantly affect the results. We examined the effect of varying agarose concentrations, alkaline unwinding time, electrophoresis time, voltage and current, by use of two cell types, viz. human peripheral blood lymphocytes and the lymphoblastoid cell line TK-6. All these variables have marked effects on assay performance and, therefore, on the determination of DNA damage. Here we identify factors of particular importance.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21645630     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2011.05.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutat Res        ISSN: 0027-5107            Impact factor:   2.433


  18 in total

Review 1.  Biologically relevant oxidants and terminology, classification and nomenclature of oxidatively generated damage to nucleobases and 2-deoxyribose in nucleic acids.

Authors:  Jean Cadet; Steffen Loft; Ryszard Olinski; Mark D Evans; Karol Bialkowski; J Richard Wagner; Peter C Dedon; Peter Møller; Marc M Greenberg; Marcus S Cooke
Journal:  Free Radic Res       Date:  2012-02-22

2.  Micropatterned comet assay enables high throughput and sensitive DNA damage quantification.

Authors:  Jing Ge; Danielle N Chow; Jessica L Fessler; David M Weingeist; David K Wood; Bevin P Engelward
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.000

3.  Neurofibromin is a novel regulator of Ras-induced reactive oxygen species production in mice and humans.

Authors:  Waylan K Bessler; Farlyn Z Hudson; Hanfang Zhang; Valerie Harris; Yusi Wang; Julie A Mund; Brandon Downing; David A Ingram; Jamie Case; David J Fulton; Brian K Stansfield
Journal:  Free Radic Biol Med       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 7.376

4.  Assessing Stem Cell DNA Integrity for Cardiac Cell Therapy.

Authors:  Jessica M Miller; Nikhil Maneesh Mardhekar; Vasanthi Rajasekaran; Jianyi Zhang; Ram Kannappan
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 1.355

Review 5.  Comet assay: a versatile but complex tool in genotoxicity testing.

Authors:  Eugenia Cordelli; Margherita Bignami; Francesca Pacchierotti
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2021-01-05       Impact factor: 3.524

6.  Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cellulose nanofibers.

Authors:  Renata de Lima; Leandro Oliveira Feitosa; Cintia Rodrigues Maruyama; Mariana Abreu Barga; Patrícia Cristina Yamawaki; Isolda Jesus Vieira; Eliangela M Teixeira; Ana Carolina Corrêa; Luiz Henrique Caparelli Mattoso; Leonardo Fernandes Fraceto
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2012-07-11

7.  The comet assay: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Sabine A S Langie; Amaya Azqueta; Andrew R Collins
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2015-08-13       Impact factor: 4.599

8.  Validation of freezing tissues and cells for analysis of DNA strand break levels by comet assay.

Authors:  Petra Jackson; Lourdes M Pedersen; Zdenka O Kyjovska; Nicklas R Jacobsen; Anne T Saber; Karin S Hougaard; Ulla Vogel; Håkan Wallin
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 3.000

9.  Using a medium-throughput comet assay to evaluate the global DNA methylation status of single cells.

Authors:  Angélique Lewies; Etresia Van Dyk; Johannes F Wentzel; Pieter J Pretorius
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2014-07-07       Impact factor: 4.599

Review 10.  Drosophila comet assay: insights, uses, and future perspectives.

Authors:  Isabel Gaivão; L María Sierra
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 4.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.