Curve fitting of combined comet intensity profiles : a new global concept to quantify DNA damage by the comet assay

Abstract The comet assay has become a widely used technique to detect a broad spectrum of DNA damage with the particularity of being performed at cell level. Usual stress quantification methods include individual comet visual examination (“visual scoring”) and computer-assisted image analysis. However, a certain subjectivity, loss of information or dispersion of data associated with these methods do not always allow to ascertain low-level genotoxicity nor to exactly quantify damage magnitude. This paper validates on two cell lines (murine lymphoma P388D1 and human melanoma HBL), treated with increasing doses of ethyl methanesulfonate, a new concept developed within the Matlab® environment for DNA damage quantification by comet assay. Instead of collecting data at cell-level, we propose to build a mathematical model from the combination of the sampled comet intensity profiles. The proposed fitting model is the sum of 2 bell-shaped curves. The results show that this mathematical modelling approach represents a good tool to ascertain the presence of DNA damage as well as quantify DNA damage. In this latter case, DNA damage may be quantified either (i) directly from model parameters, or (ii) by recomputing classical morphological comet metrics such as Tail DNA on the fitted profile.

[1]  A. Collins,et al.  Direct enzymic detection of endogenous oxidative base damage in human lymphocyte DNA. , 1993, Carcinogenesis.

[2]  W Böcker,et al.  Automated comet assay analysis. , 1999, Cytometry.

[3]  Diana Anderson,et al.  Comet assay responses as indicators of carcinogen exposure. , 1998, Mutagenesis.

[4]  K. Miura,et al.  Microcomputer-based nonlinear regression analysis of ligand-binding data: application of Akaike's information criterion. , 1986, Japanese journal of pharmacology.

[5]  P. Olive,et al.  DNA damage and repair in individual cells: applications of the comet assay in radiobiology. , 1999, International journal of radiation biology.

[6]  A. Ceccarini,et al.  Enhancing the quality of information obtained by a comparison between experimental and deconvolved peak parameters in ion chromatography , 1997 .

[7]  M. Green,et al.  The single cell gel electrophoresis assay (comet assay): a European review. , 1993, Mutation research.

[8]  P. Olive,et al.  The comet assay: a comprehensive review. , 1995, Mutation research.

[9]  D. Massart Chemometrics: A Textbook , 1988 .

[10]  E. Rojas,et al.  Single cell gel electrophoresis assay: methodology and applications. , 1999, Journal of chromatography. B, Biomedical sciences and applications.

[11]  R. Tice,et al.  Single cell gel/comet assay: Guidelines for in vitro and in vivo genetic toxicology testing , 2000, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[12]  J. Nygren,et al.  The comet assay: mechanisms and technical considerations. , 1996, Mutation research.

[13]  G. Steel,et al.  The comet moment as a measure of DNA damage in the comet assay. , 1995, International journal of radiation biology.

[14]  N. Singh,et al.  Microgels for estimation of DNA strand breaks, DNA protein crosslinks and apoptosis. , 2000, Mutation research.

[15]  P. Schmezer,et al.  The effect of various antioxidants and other modifying agents on oxygen-radical-generated DNA damage in human lymphocytes in the COMET assay. , 1994, Mutation research.

[16]  B. Hellman,et al.  The concepts of tail moment and tail inertia in the single cell gel electrophoresis assay. , 1995, Mutation research.

[17]  J Ashby,et al.  The single cell gel electrophoresis assay for induced DNA damage (comet assay): measurement of tail length and moment. , 1995, Mutagenesis.

[18]  D. Lovell,et al.  Issues related to the experimental design and subsequent statistical analysis of in vivo and in vitro comet studies. , 1999, Teratogenesis, carcinogenesis, and mutagenesis.

[19]  A. Collins,et al.  Single-cell gel electrophoresis applied to the analysis of UV-C damage and its repair in human cells. , 1992, International journal of radiation biology.

[20]  D. Marquardt An Algorithm for Least-Squares Estimation of Nonlinear Parameters , 1963 .

[21]  A. Collins,et al.  The kinetics of repair of oxidative DNA damage (strand breaks and oxidised pyrimidines) in human cells. , 1995, Mutation research.

[22]  P. Duez,et al.  Statistics of the Comet assay: a key to discriminate between genotoxic effects. , 2003, Mutagenesis.

[23]  W Frieauff,et al.  Automatic analysis of slides processed in the Comet assay. , 2001, Mutagenesis.

[24]  H. Kobayashi A comparison between manual microscopic analysis and computerized image analysis in the single cell gel electrophoresis , 1995 .

[25]  M. Dusinska,et al.  Comet assay in human biomonitoring studies: Reliability, validation, and applications , 1997, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[26]  V B Di Marco,et al.  Mathematical functions for the representation of chromatographic peaks. , 2001, Journal of chromatography. A.

[27]  W Böcker,et al.  Image analysis of comet assay measurements. , 1997, International journal of radiation biology.

[28]  A. Collins The Comet Assay , 2002 .

[29]  V. McKelvey-Martin,et al.  Evaluation of manual and image analysis quantification of DNA damage in the alkaline comet assay. , 1997, Mutagenesis.

[30]  R. Tice,et al.  A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. , 1988, Experimental cell research.

[31]  W. Markesbery,et al.  Increased DNA Oxidation and Decreased Levels of Repair Products in Alzheimer's Disease Ventricular CSF , 1999, Journal of neurochemistry.