4.1 Article

The ability of the high-throughput comet assay to measure the sensitivity of five cell lines toward methyl methanesulfonate, hydrogen peroxide, and pentachlorophenol

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2010.04.011

关键词

High throughput; Comet assay; V79; Hep-G2; HeLa; Fibroblasts; Lymphocytes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new, high-throughput version of the comet assay was developed using human fibroblasts (Stang and Witte, 2009). The present study examines the suitability of other adherent and non-adherent cell types in this high-throughput assay. We found that in addition to V79 human fibroblasts, HeLa cells, Hep-G2 cells, and lymphocytes can be used. The time intervals needed for attachment on the agarose-coated 96-well multi-chamber plate (MCP, specially developed for the high-throughput comet assay) differed for all adherent cell lines mentioned. V79 cells needed 6 h for attachment, fibroblasts 2-4 h, Hep-G2 required 18 h, and HeLa cells 16 h. After this period, chemical treatment could occur. Non-adherent lymphocytes could be treated with the chemicals directly after they had been pipetted into the wells of the MCP and centrifuged. We compared the sensitivities of these five cell types toward the directly DNA-damaging compounds methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and toward the indirectly acting agent pentachlorophenol (PCP). Except for Hep-G2 cells, exposure to PCP was conducted in the presence of an S9 microsome fraction. DNA damage, measured as an increase in the percentage of DNA in the tail region of the comets, occurred in a concentration-dependent manner. Under the test conditions used in this study, human lymphocytes were the most sensitive cells toward the three chemicals tested, fibroblasts showed a similar sensitivity toward the directly acting MMS and H2O2, but were less sensitive toward PCP. HeLa, V79, and Hep-G2 cells reacted with similar sensitivity. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据