Calibration of the comet assay using ionising radiation.


Journal

Mutation research. Genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis
ISSN: 1879-3592
Titre abrégé: Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101632149

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jan 2023
Historique:
received: 30 07 2022
revised: 25 10 2022
accepted: 14 11 2022
entrez: 20 1 2023
pubmed: 21 1 2023
medline: 25 1 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Several trials have attempted to identify sources of inter-laboratory variability in comet assay results, aiming at achieving more equal responses. Ionising radiation induces a defined level of DNA single-strand breaks (per dose/base pairs) and is used as a reference when comparing comet results but relies on accurately determined radiation doses. In this ring test we studied the significance of dose calibrations and comet assay protocol differences, with the object of identifying causes of variability and how to deal with them. Eight participating laboratories, using either x-ray or gamma radiation units, measured dose rates using alanine pellet dosimeters that were subsequently sent to a specialised laboratory for analysis. We found substantial deviations between calibrated and nominal (uncalibrated) dose rates, with up to 46% difference comparing highest and lowest values. Three additional dosimetry systems were employed in some laboratories: thermoluminescence detectors and two aqueous chemical dosimeters. Fricke's and Benzoic Acid dosimetry solutions gave reliable quantitative dose estimations using local equipment. Mononuclear cells from fresh human blood or mammalian cell lines were irradiated locally with calibrated (alanine) radiation doses and analysed for DNA damage using a standardised comet assay protocol and a lab-specific protocol. The dose response of eight laboratories, calculated against calibrated radiation doses, was linear with slope variance CV= 29% with the lab-specific protocol, reduced to CV= 16% with the standard protocol. Variation between laboratories indicate post-irradiation repair differences. Intra-laboratory variation was very low judging from the dose response of 8 donors (CV=4%). Electrophoresis conditions were different in the lab-specific protocols explaining some dose response variations which were reduced by systematic corrections for electrophoresis conditions. The study shows that comet assay data obtained in different laboratories can be compared quantitatively using calibrated radiation doses and that systematic corrections for electrophoresis conditions are useful.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36669811
pii: S1383-5718(22)00122-X
doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2022.503560
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

503560

Informations de copyright

Crown Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflict of interest All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Auteurs

Gunnar Brunborg (G)

Division of Climate and Environmental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, P.O. Box 222, N-0213 Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: gunnar.brunborg@fhi.no.

Dag M Eide (DM)

Division of Climate and Environmental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, P.O. Box 222, N-0213 Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: dagmarkus.eide@fhi.no.

Anne Graupner (A)

Division of Climate and Environmental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, P.O. Box 222, N-0213 Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: anne.graupner@gmail.com.

Kristine Gutzkow (K)

Division of Climate and Environmental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, P.O. Box 222, N-0213 Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: kristinebjerve.gutzkow@fhi.no.

Sergey Shaposhnikov (S)

NorGenoTech AS, Ullernchausséen 64/66, 0379 Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: sas@norgenotech.no.

Marcin Kruszewski (M)

Faculty of Medicine, University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów, ul. Sucharskiego 2, 35-225 Rzeszów, Poland; Department of Molecular Biology and Translational Research, Institute of Rural Health, ul. Jaczewskiego 2, 20-090 Lublin, Poland. Electronic address: marcin.kruszewski@gmail.com.

Nikolai Sirota (N)

Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Biophysics of Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Russia. Electronic address: sirota@iteb.ru.

George D D Jones (GDD)

Department of Genetics and Genome Biology, Leicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Robert Kilpatrick Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester LE2 7LX, UK. Electronic address: gdj2@le.ac.uk.

Gudrun Koppen (G)

Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Environmental Risk and Health Unit, Boeretang 200, B-2400 Mol, Belgium. Electronic address: gudrun.koppen@vito.be.

Filip Vanhavere (F)

Radiation Protection, Dosimetry and Calibration, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre SCK·CEN, Boeretang 200, Mol 2400, Belgium. Electronic address: filip.vanhavere@sckcen.be.

Peter Møller (P)

Section of Environmental Health, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5A, P.O. Box 2099, DK-1014 Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: pemo@sund.ku.dk.

Rudolf Stetina (R)

University of Defence, Faculty of Military Health Sciences, Department of Toxicology, Trebesska 1575, 50001 Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic. Electronic address: r.stetina@tiscali.cz.

Hildegunn Dahl (H)

Division of Climate and Environmental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, P.O. Box 222, N-0213 Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: hildegunn.dahl@fhi.no.

Andrew Collins (A)

Dept of Nutrition, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, PB 1046 Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: collinsand@gmail.com.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH