4.5 Article

Optimizing immunoslot blot assays and application to low DNA adduct levels using an amplification approach

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 403, 期 1-2, 页码 67-73

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2010.04.015

关键词

Immunoslot blot assay; DNA adducts; O(6)CMdG; M(1)dG; Genome amplification; EPIC; Processed meat

资金

  1. MRC, Food Standards Agency [T01007]
  2. World Cancer Research Fund [2004/24]
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U105630924] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [MC_U105630924] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immunoslot blot assays have been used for the analysis of many DNA adducts, but problems are frequently encountered in achieving reproducible results. Each step of the assay was examined systematically, and it was found that the major problems are in the DNA fragmentation step and the use of the manifold apparatus. Optimization was performed on both the malondialdehyde-deoxyguanosine (M(1)dG) adduct and the O(6)-carboxymethyl-deoxyguanosine (O(6)CMdG) adduct to demonstrate the applicability to other DNA adducts. Blood samples from the European Prospective Investigation on Cancer (EPIC) study (n = 162) were analyzed for M1dG adducts, and the data showed no correlation with adduct levels in other tissues, indicating that the EPIC blood samples were not useful for studying M(1)dG adducts. Blood samples from a processed meat versus vegetarian diet intervention (n = 6) were analyzed for O(6)CMdG, and many were below the limit of detection. The reduction of background adduct levels in standard DNA was investigated using chemical and whole genome amplification approaches. The latter gave a sensitivity improvement of 2.6 adducts per 107 nucleotides for the analysis of O(6)CMdG. Subsequent reanalysis for O(6)CMdG showed a weakly significant increase in O(6)CMdG on the processed meat diet compared with the vegetarian diet, demonstrating that further studies are warranted. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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