4.3 Review

Harmonising measurements of 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2′-deoxyguanosine in cellular DNA and urine

Journal

FREE RADICAL RESEARCH
Volume 46, Issue 4, Pages 541-553

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/10715762.2011.644241

Keywords

8-oxodGuo; biomarker; comet assay; DNA damage; validation; urine; oxidative stress

Funding

  1. ECNIS (Environmental Cancer Risk, Nutrition and Individual Susceptibility)
  2. network of excellence within the European Union [513943]
  3. ECNIS2 : towards ECNIS Centre for Research and Education on Cancer, Environment and Food [266198]
  4. Centre for Indoor air and Health in Dwellings (Realdania Research)
  5. Centre for Pharmaceutical Nanotechnology and Nanotoxicology (Danish Council for Strategic Research)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Levels of oxidatively damaged cellular DNA and urinary excretion of damaged 2'-deoxyribonuclosides are widely measured in biomonitoring studies examining the role of oxidative stress induced by environmental exposures, lifestyle factors and development of disease. This has promoted efforts to harmonise measurements of oxidised guanine nucleobases by the variety of analytical approaches for DNA and urinary levels of damage, in multi-laboratory trials that are centred in Europe. The large inter-laboratory variation reported of values of oxidatively damaged DNA is reduced by harmonising assay protocols. Recent attention on optimal conditions for the comet assay may lead to better understanding of the most critical steps in procedure, which generate variation in DNA damage levels between laboratories. Measurements of urinary excretion of oxidatively generated 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2'-deoxyguanosine also show large differences between different methods, where chromatographic techniques generally show more reliable results than antibody-based methods. In this case, standardising calibrants is aimed at improving within technique agreement.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available