ArticleScientific reports2016
The Comet Assay: Automated Imaging Methods for Improved Analysis and Reproducibility.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- The flap endonuclease-1 promotes cellular tolerance to a chain-terminating nucleoside analog, alovudine, by counteracting the toxic effect of 53BP1.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Dual p38MAPK and MEK inhibition disrupts adaptive chemoresistance in mesenchymal glioblastoma to temozolomide.Neuro-oncology · 2024Article
- REV3 promotes cellular tolerance to 5-fluorodeoxyuridine by activating translesion DNA synthesis and intra-S checkpoint.PLoS genetics · 2024Article
- Flounder fish (Paralichthys sp.) collagen a new tissue regeneration: genotoxicity, cytotoxicity and physical-chemistry characterization.Bioprocess and biosystems engineering · 2023Article
- Pectolinarigenin inhibits bladder urothelial carcinoma cell proliferation by regulating DNA damage/autophagy pathways.Cell death discovery · 2023Article
- Standards for Quantitative Measurement of DNA Damage in Mammalian Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- 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.Journal of nucleic acids · 2022Article
- Genotoxicity Assessment of Metal-Based Nanocomposites Applied in Drug Delivery.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Human Hazard Assessment UsingInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Meiosis-Specific Functions of Kinesin Motors in Cohesin Removal and Maintenance of Chromosome Integrity in Budding Yeast.Molecular and cellular biology · 2020Article
- Cellular Reference Materials for DNA Damage Using Electrochemical Oxidation.Journal of nucleic acids · 2020Article
- Radioresistance, DNA Damage and DNA Repair in Cells With Moderate Overexpression of RPA1.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- Genotoxic Effects of Etoposide, Bleomycin, and Ethyl Methanesulfonate on Cultured CHO Cells: Analysis by GC-MS/MS and Comet Assay.Journal of nucleic acids · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the Major Steps in the Conventional Protocol for the Alkaline Comet Assay.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
- DNA damage measurements within tissue samples with Repair Assisted Damage Detection (RADD).Current research in biotechnology · 2019Article
- Simultaneous detection of multiple DNA damage types by multi-colour fluorescent labelling.Chemical communications (Cambridge, England) · 2019Article
- Monitoring ZEO apoptotic potential in 2D and 3D cell cultures and associated spectroscopic evidence on mode of interaction with DNA.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- The various aspects of genetic and epigenetic toxicology: testing methods and clinical applications.Journal of translational medicine · 2017Review
- ALC1/CHD1L, a chromatin-remodeling enzyme, is required for efficient base excision repair.PloS one · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sources of variability in the comet assay include variations in the protocol used to process the cells, the microscope imaging system and the software used in the computerized analysis of the images. Here we focus on the effect of variations in the microscope imaging system and software analysis using fixed preparations of cells and a single cell processing protocol. To determine the effect of the microscope imaging and analysis on the measured percentage of damaged DNA (% DNA in tail), we used preparations of mammalian cells treated with etoposide or electrochemically induced DNA damage conditions and varied the settings of the automated microscope, camera, and commercial image analysis software. Manual image analysis revealed measurement variations in percent DNA in tail as high as 40% due to microscope focus, camera exposure time and the software image intensity threshold level. Automated image analysis reduced these variations as much as three-fold, but only within a narrow range of focus and exposure settings. The magnitude of variation, observed using both analysis methods, was highly dependent on the overall extent of DNA damage in the particular sample. Mitigating these sources of variability with optimal instrument settings facilitates an accurate evaluation of cell biological variability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.