ArticleGenes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society2018
The effect of different methods and image analyzers on the results of the in vivo comet assay.
Article in Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of Genetic Damage Induced via Glyphosate and Three Commercial Formulations with Adjuvants in Human Blood Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Determination of Genotoxicity Attributed to Diesel Exhaust Particles in Normal Human Embryonic Lung Cell (WI-38) Line.Biomolecules · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe 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).
findingsStandardizing 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.
conclusionBy 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.
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.