↓ Skip to main content

The effect of different methods and image analyzers on the results of the in vivo comet assay

Overview of attention for article published in Genes and Environment, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effect of different methods and image analyzers on the results of the in vivo comet assay
Published in
Genes and Environment, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s41021-017-0092-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takahiro Kyoya, Rika Iwamoto, Yuko Shimanura, Megumi Terada, Shuichi Masuda

Abstract

The in vivo comet assay is a widely used genotoxicity test that can detect DNA damage in a range of organs. It is included in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. However, various protocols are still used for this assay, and several different image analyzers are used routinely to evaluate the results. Here, we verified a protocol that largely contributes to the equivalence of results, and we assessed the effect on the results when slides made from the same sample were analyzed using two different image analyzers (Comet Assay IV vs Comet Analyzer). Standardizing the agarose concentrations and DNA unwinding and electrophoresis times had a large impact on the equivalence of the results between the different methods used for the in vivo comet assay. In addition, there was some variation in the sensitivity of the two different image analyzers tested; however this variation was considered to be minor and became negligible when the test conditions were standardized between the two different methods. By standardizing the concentrations of low melting agarose and DNA unwinding and electrophoresis times between both methods used in the current study, the sensitivity to detect the genotoxicity of a positive control substance in the in vivo comet assay became generally comparable, independently of the image analyzer used. However, there may still be the possibility that other conditions, except for the three described here, could affect the reproducibility of the in vivo comet assay.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Lecturer 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 6 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Unknown 7 41%