Statistical issues in the use of the comet assay.

The comet or single-cell gel electrophoresis assay is now widely used in regulatory, mechanistic and biomonitoring studies using a range of in vitro and in vivo systems. Each of these has issues associated with the experimental design which determine to a large extent the statistical analyses than can be used. A key concept is that the experimental unit is the smallest 'amount' of experimental material that can be randomly assigned to a treatment: the animal for in vivo studies and the culture for in vitro studies. Biomonitoring studies, being observational rather than experimental, are vulnerable to confounding and biases. Critical factors in any statistical analysis include the identification of suitable end points, the choice of measure to represent the distribution of the comet end point in a sample of cells, estimates of variability between experimental units and the identification of the size of effects that could be considered biologically important. Power and sample size calculations can be used in conjunction with this information to identify optimum experimental sizes and provide help in combining the results of statistical analyses with other information to aid interpretation. Interpretation based upon the size of effects and their confidence intervals is preferred to that based solely upon statistical significance tests. Statistical issues associated with the design and subsequent analyses of current validation studies for the comet assay include the identification of acceptable levels of intra- and inter-laboratory repeatability and reproducibility and criteria for dichotomizing results into positive or negative.

[1]  G. Speit,et al.  Detection of crosslinks with the comet assay in relationship to genotoxicity and cytotoxicity , 1999, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[2]  S. Pfuhler,et al.  The in vivo comet assay: use and status in genotoxicity testing. , 2005, Mutagenesis.

[3]  Awadhesh N Jha,et al.  Reliable Comet assay measurements for detecting DNA damage induced by ionising radiation and chemicals. , 2006, Mutation research.

[4]  R R Tice,et al.  Recommendations for conducting the in vivo alkaline Comet assay. 4th International Comet Assay Workshop. , 2003, Mutagenesis.

[5]  Andy R Ness,et al.  Statistics at Square Two: Understanding Modern Statistical Applications in Medicine. MJ Campbell. London: BMJ Books, 2001, pp. 144, £12.95. ISBN: 0-7279-1394-8. , 2002 .

[6]  Stig Johan Wiklund,et al.  Aspects of design and statistical analysis in the Comet assay. , 2003, Mutagenesis.

[7]  C. Dunnett A Multiple Comparison Procedure for Comparing Several Treatments with a Control , 1955 .

[8]  Richard F. Lee,et al.  Use of the single cell gel electrophoresis/comet assay for detecting DNA damage in aquatic (marine and freshwater) animals. , 2003, Mutation research.

[9]  Brenda Eskenazi,et al.  Biological sample collection and processing for molecular epidemiological studies. , 2003, Mutation research.

[10]  K. Brauers,et al.  Development and validation of a modified comet assay to phenotypically assess nucleotide excision repair. , 2006, Mutagenesis.

[11]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[12]  Margaret J. Robertson,et al.  Design and Analysis of Experiments , 2006, Handbook of statistics.

[13]  N. Sadlej-Sosnowska,et al.  Statistical evaluation and comparison of comet assay results. , 2003, Mutation research.

[14]  B. K. Murray,et al.  Tail profile: a more accurate system for analyzing DNA damage using the Comet assay. , 2003, Mutation research.

[15]  P. Verde,et al.  Application of public-domain statistical analysis software for evaluation and comparison of comet assay data. , 2006, Mutation research.

[16]  ICCVAM Guidelines for the Nomination and Submission of New, Revised, and Alternative Test Methods , 2003 .

[17]  C Helma,et al.  A public domain image-analysis program for the single-cell gel-electrophoresis (comet) assay. , 2000, Mutation research.

[18]  Guk-Rwang Won American Society for Testing and Materials , 1987 .

[19]  R V Lenth,et al.  Statistical power calculations. , 2007, Journal of animal science.

[20]  R. Wolfinger,et al.  Comparing the SAS® GLM and MIXED Procedures for Repeated Measures , 1996 .

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

[22]  J. S. Hunter,et al.  Statistics for experimenters : an introduction to design, data analysis, and model building , 1979 .

[23]  Dieter Hauschke,et al.  Biostatistical Assessment of Mutagenicity Studies by Including the Positive Control , 2005, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

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

[25]  Philippe Bogaerts,et al.  Curve fitting of combined comet intensity profiles : a new global concept to quantify DNA damage by the comet assay , 2004 .

[26]  Patrick Royston,et al.  The cost of dichotomising continuous variables , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

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

[28]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistics notes: Sample size in cluster randomisation , 1998, BMJ.

[29]  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.

[30]  R. Abbott,et al.  Statistics at Square Two: Understanding Modern Statistical Applications in Medicine , 2001 .

[31]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 2002, Technometrics.

[32]  R. Barale,et al.  DNA damage evaluated by alkaline single cell gel electrophoresis (SCGE) in children of Chernobyl, 10 years after the disaster. , 2001, Mutation research.

[33]  J. Bland,et al.  Statistics notes : Analysis of a trial randomised in clusters , 1998 .

[34]  D. Cox,et al.  An Analysis of Transformations , 1964 .

[35]  A. Collins,et al.  The comet assay for DNA damage and repair , 2004, Molecular biotechnology.

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

[37]  D Krewski,et al.  Procedures for calculating benchmark doses for health risk assessment. , 1998, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[38]  A. Collins,et al.  A buccal cell model comet assay: development and evaluation for human biomonitoring and nutritional studies. , 2005, Mutation research.

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

[40]  J M Bland,et al.  Analysis of a trial randomised in clusters , 1998, BMJ.

[41]  Gerald B. Heyes,et al.  ASTM E691–87 Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a Test Method , 1993 .

[42]  J M Bland,et al.  The intracluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomisation , 1998, BMJ.

[43]  K J Johanson,et al.  Microelectrophoretic study of radiation-induced DNA damages in individual mammalian cells. , 1984, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[44]  D. Altman,et al.  Reporting on Statistical Methods To Adjust for Confounding: A Cross-Sectional Survey , 2002, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[45]  John Eng,et al.  Sample size estimation: a glimpse beyond simple formulas. , 2004, Radiology.

[46]  G. Belle Statistical rules of thumb , 2002 .

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

[48]  James K. Brewer,et al.  Statistical Rules of Thumb , 2003 .

[49]  D J Finney Thoughts suggested by a recent paper: questions on non-parametric analysis of quantitative data. , 1995, The Journal of toxicological sciences.

[50]  R Barkman,et al.  ASTM. 1999. Standard practice for conducting an interlaboratory study to determine the precision of a test method. ASTM E691-92. In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Philadelphia, PA:American Society for Testing and Materials. , 2006 .

[51]  Minitab Statistical Methods for Quality Improvement , 2001 .

[52]  Raymond R Tice,et al.  Fourth International Workgroup on Genotoxicity testing: results of the in vivo Comet assay workgroup. , 2007, Mutation research.

[53]  Anton A. Huurdeman Appendix C: Glossary , 2003 .

[54]  P. Lachenbruch Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .