A novel approach to increase robustness, precision and high-throughput capacity of single cell gel electrophoresis.

The routine use of single cell gel electrophoresis assay in medical diagnostics and biomonitoring is prevented by its high variability. Several factors have been identified and can be grouped into four main categories: 1) the biological sample, 2) the assay protocol, 3) the physical parameters during electrophoresis and 4) the analysis. Even though the scientific knowledge on assay variability is available, not much has been done so far to tackle the issues from the technological side. Therefore, this study addresses the question in how far the precise and accurate control over the physical parameters of electrophoresis is able to reduce variability of single cell gel electrophoresis assay results. All four above mentioned categories make up the overall assay variability. To resolve the contribution from a single category, the remaining three have to be kept as constant as possible. To achieve this we generated a set of x-ray treated control cells, worked according to a well-defined standard operating procedure and one single operator performed the analysis. Thereby variability resulting from the electrophoresis tank could be elucidated. We compared assay performance in two such tank systems: a newly developed electrophoresis tank that accurately controls voltage, temperature during the electrophoretic run and the homogeneity of the electric field, and a widely used commercially available standard platform tank. In summary, our results demonstrate that, irrespective of the cellular sample and its intrinsic biological variability, accurate control over physical parameters considerably increases repeatability, reproducibility and precision of single cell gel electrophoresis.

[1]  L. Buchynska,et al.  DNA damage in tumor cells and peripheral blood lymphocytes of endometrial cancer patients assessed by the comet assay. , 2017, Experimental oncology.

[2]  Amaya Azqueta,et al.  Standardisation of the in vitro comet assay: influence of lysis time and lysis solution composition on the detection of DNA damage induced by X-rays , 2018, Mutagenesis.

[3]  Alok Dhawan,et al.  The Comet Assay in Human Biomonitoring. , 2019, Methods in molecular biology.

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

[5]  Diana Anderson,et al.  Aspirin and ibuprofen, in bulk and nanoforms: Effects on DNA damage in peripheral lymphocytes from breast cancer patients and healthy individuals. , 2017, Mutation research. Genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis.

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

[7]  John D. Potter,et al.  Flow cytometric analysis of the cell cycle phase specificity of DNA damage induced by radiation, hydrogen peroxide and doxorubicin. , 2002, Carcinogenesis.

[8]  David K. Wood,et al.  Single cell trapping and DNA damage analysis using microwell arrays , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  I. Witte,et al.  Performance of the comet assay in a high-throughput version. , 2009, Mutation research.

[10]  Amaya Azqueta,et al.  High throughput sample processing and automated scoring , 2014, Front. Genet..

[11]  Gunnar Brunborg,et al.  High-throughput comet assay using 96 minigels. , 2013, Mutagenesis.

[12]  Peter Wick,et al.  Transient DNA damage following exposure to gold nanoparticles. , 2018, Nanoscale.

[13]  R E Durand,et al.  Factors influencing DNA migration from individual cells subjected to gel electrophoresis. , 1992, Experimental cell research.

[14]  David H Phillips,et al.  Variation in the measurement of DNA damage by comet assay measured by the ECVAG inter-laboratory validation trial. , 2010, Mutagenesis.

[15]  Gunnar Brunborg,et al.  Electrophoresis in the Comet Assay , 2018, Electrophoresis - Life Sciences Practical Applications.

[16]  G. Koch,et al.  Synchronization of HeLa cell cultures by inhibition of DNA polymerase alpha with aphidicolin. , 1980, Nucleic acids research.

[17]  Andreas Hecht,et al.  Canonical Wnt signaling transiently stimulates proliferation and enhances neurogenesis in neonatal neural progenitor cultures. , 2007, Experimental cell research.

[18]  Amaya Azqueta,et al.  Controlling variation in the comet assay , 2014, Front. Genet..

[19]  Kurt Saetzler,et al.  Comet sensitivity in assessing DNA damage and repair in different cell cycle stages. , 2010, Mutagenesis.

[20]  A Stang,et al.  Automated analysis of DNA damage in the high-throughput version of the comet assay. , 2010, Mutation research.

[21]  Amaya Azqueta,et al.  Towards a more reliable comet assay: optimising agarose concentration, unwinding time and electrophoresis conditions. , 2011, Mutation research.

[22]  Maria Dusinska,et al.  Technical recommendations to perform the alkaline standard and enzyme-modified comet assay in human biomonitoring studies. , 2019, Mutation research.

[23]  Peter Wick,et al.  A novel comprehensive evaluation platform to assess nanoparticle toxicity in vitro , 2011 .

[24]  Sabine A S Langie,et al.  The comet assay in human biomonitoring: cryopreservation of whole blood and comparison with isolated mononuclear cells , 2018, Mutagenesis.

[25]  G. Davison,et al.  Exercise and Oxidative Damage in Nucleoid DNA Quantified Using Single Cell Gel Electrophoresis: Present and Future Application , 2016, Front. Physiol..

[26]  G Speit,et al.  The influence of temperature during alkaline treatment and electrophoresis on results obtained with the comet assay. , 1999, Toxicology letters.

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

[28]  David H Phillips,et al.  Inter-laboratory variation in DNA damage using a standard comet assay protocol. , 2012, Mutagenesis.

[29]  E. Khizhnyak,et al.  Some causes of inter-laboratory variation in the results of comet assay. , 2014, Mutation research. Genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis.

[30]  Diana Anderson,et al.  Using a Modified Lymphocyte Genome Sensitivity (LGS) test or TumorScan test to detect cancer at an early stage in each individual , 2018, FASEB bioAdvances.

[31]  Diana Anderson,et al.  Sensitivity and specificity of the empirical lymphocyte genome sensitivity (LGS) assay: implications for improving cancer diagnostics , 2014, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[32]  Amaya Azqueta,et al.  The influence of scoring method on variability in results obtained with the comet assay. , 2011, Mutagenesis.

[33]  A Wolfreys,et al.  The ability of the Comet assay to discriminate between genotoxins and cytotoxins. , 1998, Mutagenesis.

[34]  Panagiotis Apostolou,et al.  Use of the comet assay technique for quick and reliable prediction of in vitro response to chemotherapeutics in breast and colon cancer , 2014, Journal of Biological Research-Thessaloniki.

[35]  Two recently approved in vivo Genotoxicity test guidelines , 2014 .

[36]  Lennart Möller,et al.  The effects on DNA migration of altering parameters in the comet assay protocol such as agarose density, electrophoresis conditions and durations of the enzyme or the alkaline treatments. , 2011, Mutagenesis.

[37]  Maria Dusinska,et al.  On the search for an intelligible comet assay descriptor , 2014, Front. Genet..