AIMS: Urinary 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-oxodG) is a widely used biomarker of oxidative stress. However, variability between chromatographic and ELISA methods hampers interpretation of data, and this variability may increase should urine composition differ between individuals, leading to assay interference. Furthermore, optimal urine sampling conditions are not well defined. We performed inter-laboratory comparisons of 8-oxodG measurement between mass spectrometric-, electrochemical- and ELISA-based methods, using common within-technique calibrants to analyze 8-oxodG-spiked phosphate-buffered saline and urine samples. We also investigated human subject- and sample collection-related variables, as potential sources of variability. RESULTS: Chromatographic assays showed high agreement across urines from different subjects, whereas ELISAs showed far more inter-laboratory variation and generally overestimated levels, compared to the chromatographic assays. Excretion rates in timed 'spot' samples showed strong correlations with 24 h excretion (the 'gold' standard) of urinary 8-oxodG (rp 0.67-0.90), although the associations were weaker for 8-oxodG adjusted for creatinine or specific gravity (SG). The within-individual excretion of 8-oxodG varied only moderately between days (CV 17% for 24 h excretion and 20% for first void, creatinine-corrected samples). INNOVATION: This is the first comprehensive study of both human and methodological factors influencing 8-oxodG measurement, providing key information for future studies with this important biomarker. CONCLUSION: ELISA variability is greater than chromatographic assay variability, and cannot determine absolute levels of 8-oxodG. Use of standardized calibrants greatly improves intra-technique agreement and, for the chromatographic assays, importantly allows integration of results for pooled analyses. If 24 h samples are not feasible, creatinine- or SG-adjusted first morning samples are recommended.
AIMS: Urinary 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-oxodG) is a widely used biomarker of oxidative stress. However, variability between chromatographic and ELISA methods hampers interpretation of data, and this variability may increase should urine composition differ between individuals, leading to assay interference. Furthermore, optimal urine sampling conditions are not well defined. We performed inter-laboratory comparisons of 8-oxodG measurement between mass spectrometric-, electrochemical- and ELISA-based methods, using common within-technique calibrants to analyze 8-oxodG-spiked phosphate-buffered saline and urine samples. We also investigated human subject- and sample collection-related variables, as potential sources of variability. RESULTS: Chromatographic assays showed high agreement across urines from different subjects, whereas ELISAs showed far more inter-laboratory variation and generally overestimated levels, compared to the chromatographic assays. Excretion rates in timed 'spot' samples showed strong correlations with 24 h excretion (the 'gold' standard) of urinary 8-oxodG (rp 0.67-0.90), although the associations were weaker for 8-oxodG adjusted for creatinine or specific gravity (SG). The within-individual excretion of 8-oxodG varied only moderately between days (CV 17% for 24 h excretion and 20% for first void, creatinine-corrected samples). INNOVATION: This is the first comprehensive study of both human and methodological factors influencing 8-oxodG measurement, providing key information for future studies with this important biomarker. CONCLUSION: ELISA variability is greater than chromatographic assay variability, and cannot determine absolute levels of 8-oxodG. Use of standardized calibrants greatly improves intra-technique agreement and, for the chromatographic assays, importantly allows integration of results for pooled analyses. If 24 h samples are not feasible, creatinine- or SG-adjusted first morning samples are recommended.
Authors: Roberta Andreoli; Paola Manini; Giuseppe De Palma; Rossella Alinovi; Matteo Goldoni; Wilfried M A Niessen; Antonio Mutti Journal: Biomarkers Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.658
Authors: Hai-Shu Lin; Andrew M Jenner; Choon Nam Ong; Shan Hong Huang; Matthew Whiteman; Barry Halliwell Journal: Biochem J Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 3.857
Authors: Jeroen Frijhoff; Paul G Winyard; Neven Zarkovic; Sean S Davies; Roland Stocker; David Cheng; Annie R Knight; Emma Louise Taylor; Jeannette Oettrich; Tatjana Ruskovska; Ana Cipak Gasparovic; Antonio Cuadrado; Daniela Weber; Henrik Enghusen Poulsen; Tilman Grune; Harald H H W Schmidt; Pietro Ghezzi Journal: Antioxid Redox Signal Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 8.401
Authors: Katarzyna Kordas; Aditi Roy; Marie Vahter; Julia Ravenscroft; Nelly Mañay; Fabiana Peregalli; Gabriela Martínez; Elena I Queirolo Journal: Environ Res Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Jean Cadet; Kelvin J A Davies; Marisa Hg Medeiros; Paolo Di Mascio; J Richard Wagner Journal: Free Radic Biol Med Date: 2017-01-02 Impact factor: 7.376
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
Authors: Darren R Brenner; Dominique Scherer; Kenneth Muir; Joellen Schildkraut; Paolo Boffetta; Margaret R Spitz; Loic Le Marchand; Andrew T Chan; Ellen L Goode; Cornelia M Ulrich; Rayjean J Hung Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 4.254