ArticleArchives of toxicology2020
Expanded usage of the Challenge-Comet assay as a DNA repair biomarker in human populations: protocols for fresh and cryopreserved blood samples, and for different challenge agents.
Article in Archives of toxicology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agent-specific DNA repair kinetic in 3T3 cells: a comparative study using the in vitro comet assay.Toxicology research · 2025Article
- Review on novel toxicological effects and personalized health hazard in workers exposed to low doses of benzene.Archives of toxicology · 2024Review
- Assay conditions for estimating differences in base excision repair activity with Fpg-modified comet assay.Cell biology and toxicology · 2023Article
- Cell survival after DNA damage in the comet assay.Archives of toxicology · 2021Article
- Salivary leucocytes as suitable biomatrix for the comet assay in human biomonitoring studies.Archives of toxicology · 2021Article
- Effect of cryopreservation on DNA damage and DNA repair activity in human blood samples in the comet assay.Archives of toxicology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deficiencies in DNA damage response and repair (DDRR) can cause serious pathological outcomes; therefore, having an ability to determine individual DDRR would enhance specificities in health risk assessment and in determining individual's response to cancer therapies. However, most methods for evaluating DDRR are not fully appropriate for population studies. The Challenge-Comet assay has gained acceptance for this purpose. The assay has traditionally used X-rays as challenge agent and isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) as cell specimen. To enhance the usefulness of the assay, the objectives of this investigation were to use differently processed blood samples, to employ other challenge agents with different mechanisms of induction of DNA damage/repair, and to generate protocols for detecting different DDRR capacities. Fresh and frozen blood samples were challenged with bleomycin, methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) and ultraviolet light. Significant induction of damage after all treatments, and progressive and time-dependent DDRR were observed. No significant differences were obtained in the DDRR capacities of fresh or frozen whole blood samples as compared to PBMC, except that fresh blood samples showed higher MMS-induced DDRR capacity than PBMC. Results from this study show that the Challenge-Comet assay can be used as routine biomarker of DDRR capacity in human biomonitoring studies, and that whole blood is also a useful biomatrix for this assay. The collected data allow us to recommend different protocols for the Challenge-Comet assay which are useful for evaluating DDRR capacities in several key DNA repair pathways. Consequently, the usefulness of the Challenge-Comet assay can be greatly expanded.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33000292What 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.