Literature DB >> 22844078

Inter-laboratory variation in DNA damage using a standard comet assay protocol.

Lykke Forchhammer1, Clara Ersson, Steffen Loft, Lennart Möller, Roger W L Godschalk, Frederik J van Schooten, George D D Jones, Jennifer A Higgins, Marcus Cooke, Vilas Mistry, Mahsa Karbaschi, Andrew R Collins, Amaya Azqueta, David H Phillips, Osman Sozeri, Michael N Routledge, Kirsty Nelson-Smith, Patrizia Riso, Marisa Porrini, Giuseppe Matullo, Alessandra Allione, Maciej Stępnik, Maciej Steepnik, Magdalena Komorowska, João Paulo Teixeira, Solange Costa, Laura-Ana Corcuera, Adela López de Cerain, Blanca Laffon, Vanessa Valdiglesias, Peter Møller.   

Abstract

There are substantial inter-laboratory variations in the levels of DNA damage measured by the comet assay. The aim of this study was to investigate whether adherence to a standard comet assay protocol would reduce inter-laboratory variation in reported values of DNA damage. Fourteen laboratories determined the baseline level of DNA strand breaks (SBs)/alkaline labile sites and formamidopyrimidine DNA glycosylase (FPG)-sensitive sites in coded samples of mononuclear blood cells (MNBCs) from healthy volunteers. There were technical problems in seven laboratories in adopting the standard protocol, which were not related to the level of experience. Therefore, the inter-laboratory variation in DNA damage was only analysed using the results from laboratories that had obtained complete data with the standard comet assay protocol. This analysis showed that the differences between reported levels of DNA SBs/alkaline labile sites in MNBCs were not reduced by applying the standard assay protocol as compared with the laboratory's own protocol. There was large inter-laboratory variation in FPG-sensitive sites by the laboratory-specific protocol and the variation was reduced when the samples were analysed by the standard protocol. The SBs and FPG-sensitive sites were measured in the same experiment, indicating that the large spread in the latter lesions was the main reason for the reduced inter-laboratory variation. However, it remains worrying that half of the participating laboratories obtained poor results using the standard procedure. This study indicates that future comet assay validation trials should take steps to evaluate the implementation of standard procedures in participating laboratories.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22844078     DOI: 10.1093/mutage/ges032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutagenesis        ISSN: 0267-8357            Impact factor:   3.000


  23 in total

Review 1.  Evaluating the mechanistic evidence and key data gaps in assessing the potential carcinogenicity of carbon nanotubes and nanofibers in humans.

Authors:  Eileen D Kuempel; Marie-Claude Jaurand; Peter Møller; Yasuo Morimoto; Norihiro Kobayashi; Kent E Pinkerton; Linda M Sargent; Roel C H Vermeulen; Bice Fubini; Agnes B Kane
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 5.635

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.  Development of a Reference Method and Materials for Quantitative Measurement of UV-Induced DNA Damage in Mammalian Cells: Comparison of Comet Assay and Cell Viability.

Authors:  Donald H Atha; Alessandro Tona; Vytas Reipa
Journal:  J Nucleic Acids       Date:  2022-09-17

4.  Genotoxicity of Particles From Grinded Plastic Items in Caco-2 and HepG2 Cells.

Authors:  Martin Roursgaard; Monika Hezareh Rothmann; Juliane Schulte; Ioanna Karadimou; Elena Marinelli; Peter Møller
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-07-06

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.  Biomarkers of nucleic acid oxidation - A summary state-of-the-art.

Authors:  Mu-Rong Chao; Mark D Evans; Chiung-Wen Hu; Yunhee Ji; Peter Møller; Pavel Rossner; Marcus S Cooke
Journal:  Redox Biol       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 11.799

7.  Hepatic oxidative stress, genotoxicity and vascular dysfunction in lean or obese Zucker rats.

Authors:  Mille Løhr; Janne K Folkmann; Majid Sheykhzade; Lars J Jensen; Ali Kermanizadeh; Steffen Loft; Peter Møller
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Aberrant DNA damage response pathways may predict the outcome of platinum chemotherapy in ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Dimitra T Stefanou; Aristotelis Bamias; Hara Episkopou; Soterios A Kyrtopoulos; Maria Likka; Theodore Kalampokas; Stylianos Photiou; Nikos Gavalas; Petros P Sfikakis; Meletios A Dimopoulos; Vassilis L Souliotis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  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

10.  On the search for an intelligible comet assay descriptor.

Authors:  Peter Møller; Steffen Loft; Clara Ersson; Gudrun Koppen; Maria Dusinska; Andrew Collins
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 4.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.