Optimization of Concentrations and Exposure Durations of Commonly Used Positive Controls in the in Vitro Alkaline Comet Assay

Overview

Journal Toxicol Res (Camb)

Publisher Oxford University Press

Date 2024 Dec 11

PMID 39659849

Authors

Seda Ipek Tekneci

Aylin Ustundag

Yalcin Duydu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Endogenous and exogenous factors cause DNA damage through chemical changes in the genomic DNA structure. The comet assay is a versatile, rapid, and sensitive method for evaluating DNA integrity at the individual cell level. It is used in human biomonitoring studies, the identification of DNA lesions, and the measurement of DNA repair capacity. Despite its widespread application, variations between studies remain problematic, often due to the lack of a common protocol and appropriate test controls. Using positive controls is essential to assess inter-experimental variability and ensure reliable results. Hydrogen peroxide (HO) is the most commonly used positive control, while potassium bromate (KBrO₃), methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS), -ethyl--nitrosourea (ENU), and etoposide are used less frequently. However, differences in concentrations and exposure durations prevent the confirmation of test method efficacy. This study investigates the dose-response relationship for HO, KBrO, MMS, EMS, ENU and etoposide in the comet assay for 30 and 60-minute exposure durations in 3T3 cell lines. Accordingly recommended concentrations and exposure durations were found to be 50 μM 30 minutes (HO); 500 μM 60 min. (MMS); 10 μM 30 min. (Etoposide); 0.2 mM 30 min. and 2 mM 60 min. (EMS); 2 mM 30 min. (ENU); 500 μM 30 min. and 50 μM 60 min. (KBrO). Our findings will contribute to reducing inter-laboratory variability by offering guidance on selecting doses and exposure durations for positive controls in the alkaline comet assay.

References

Moller P, Moller L, Godschalk R, Jones G . Assessment and reduction of comet assay variation in relation to DNA damage: studies from the European Comet Assay Validation Group. Mutagenesis. 2010; 25(2):109-11. DOI: 10.1093/mutage/gep067. View

Petersen E, Nguyen A, Brown J, Elliott J, Clippinger A, Gordon J . Characteristics to consider when selecting a positive control material for an in vitro assay. ALTEX. 2021; 38(2):365-376. DOI: 10.14573/altex.2102111. View

Parsons J, Chipman J . The role of glutathione in DNA damage by potassium bromate in vitro. Mutagenesis. 2000; 15(4):311-6. DOI: 10.1093/mutage/15.4.311. View

Esteves F, Amaro R, Silva S, Sanchez-Flores M, Teixeira J, Costa C . The impact of comet assay data normalization in human biomonitoring studies outcomes. Toxicol Lett. 2020; 332:56-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.06.024. View

Ersson C, Moller P, Forchhammer L, Loft S, Azqueta A, Godschalk R . An ECVAG inter-laboratory validation study of the comet assay: inter-laboratory and intra-laboratory variations of DNA strand breaks and FPG-sensitive sites in human mononuclear cells. Mutagenesis. 2013; 28(3):279-86. DOI: 10.1093/mutage/get001. View

Bankoglu E, Kodandaraman G, Stopper H . A systematic review of the use of the alkaline comet assay for genotoxicity studies in human colon-derived cells. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2019; 845:402976. DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2018.10.008. View

Milic M, Ceppi M, Bruzzone M, Azqueta A, Brunborg G, Godschalk R . The hCOMET project: International database comparison of results with the comet assay in human biomonitoring. Baseline frequency of DNA damage and effect of main confounders. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2021; 787:108371. PMC: 8525632. DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2021.108371. View

Bolognesi C, Cirillo S, Chipman J . Comet assay in ecogenotoxicology: Applications in Mytilus sp. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2019; 842:50-59. DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2019.05.004. View

Tammaro M, Barr P, Ricci B, Yan H . Replication-dependent and transcription-dependent mechanisms of DNA double-strand break induction by the topoisomerase 2-targeting drug etoposide. PLoS One. 2013; 8(11):e79202. PMC: 3820710. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079202. View

10.

ISHIDATE Jr M, Sofuni T, Yoshikawa K, Hayashi M, Nohmi T, Sawada M . Primary mutagenicity screening of food additives currently used in Japan. Food Chem Toxicol. 1984; 22(8):623-36. DOI: 10.1016/0278-6915(84)90271-0. View

11.

Lebailly P, Vigreux C, Godard T, Sichel F, Bar E, LETALAER J . Assessment of DNA damage induced in vitro by etoposide and two fungicides (carbendazim and chlorothalonil) in human lymphocytes with the comet assay. Mutat Res. 1997; 375(2):205-17. DOI: 10.1016/s0027-5107(97)00015-8. View

12.

Moller P, Azqueta A, Boutet-Robinet E, Koppen G, Bonassi S, Milic M . Minimum Information for Reporting on the Comet Assay (MIRCA): recommendations for describing comet assay procedures and results. Nat Protoc. 2020; 15(12):3817-3826. PMC: 7688437. DOI: 10.1038/s41596-020-0398-1. View

13.

Azqueta A, Ladeira C, Giovannelli L, Boutet-Robinet E, Bonassi S, Neri M . Application of the comet assay in human biomonitoring: An hCOMET perspective. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2020; 783:108288. DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.108288. View

14.

Moller P, Azqueta A, Collia M, Bakuradze T, Richling E, Bankoglu E . Inter-laboratory variation in measurement of DNA damage by the alkaline comet assay in the hCOMET ring trial. Mutagenesis. 2023; 38(5):283-294. DOI: 10.1093/mutage/gead014. View

15.

Gajski G, Ravlic S, Godschalk R, Collins A, Dusinska M, Brunborg G . Application of the comet assay for the evaluation of DNA damage in mature sperm. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2021; 788:108398. DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2021.108398. View

16.

Bankoglu E, Schuele C, Stopper H . Cell survival after DNA damage in the comet assay. Arch Toxicol. 2021; 95(12):3803-3813. PMC: 8536587. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-021-03164-3. View

17.

Ellahuene M, Perez-Alzola L, Farfan-Urzua M, Gonzalez-Hormazabal P, Garay M, Olmedo M . Preliminary evaluation of DNA damage related with the smoking habit measured by the comet assay in whole blood cells. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004; 13(7):1223-9. View

18.

Stavreva D, Ptacek O, Plewa M, GICHNER T . Single cell gel electrophoresis analysis of genomic damage induced by ethyl methanesulfonate in cultured tobacco cells. Mutat Res. 1998; 422(2):323-30. DOI: 10.1016/s0027-5107(98)00213-9. View

19.

Rosignoli P, Fabiani R, De Bartolomeo A, Spinozzi F, Agea E, Pelli M . Protective activity of butyrate on hydrogen peroxide-induced DNA damage in isolated human colonocytes and HT29 tumour cells. Carcinogenesis. 2001; 22(10):1675-80. DOI: 10.1093/carcin/22.10.1675. View

20.

Moller P . The comet assay: ready for 30 more years. Mutagenesis. 2018; 33(1):1-7. DOI: 10.1093/mutage/gex046. View