İçeriğe geç
akaturk Akademik ölçüm

Makale detayı · 2021 · article

The hCOMET project: International database comparison of results with the comet assay in human biomonitoring. Baseline frequency of DNA damage and effect of main confounders

YÖKSİS OpenAlex Açık erişim · hybrid Üst %10
Yıl2021
Atıf104OpenAlex
Atıf93Semantic Scholar · 4 etkili
Yüzdelik%97,9
FWCI5,891,00 = dünya ortalaması
Scopus (SJR)Q1
WoS (JCR)Q1

Veri kaynağı ayrımı

  • YÖKSİSYÖKSİS makale kaydı
  • YÖKSİS dergi adıMutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research
  • Katalog eşleşmesi (ISSN)Mutation Research - Reviews in Mutation Research
  • OpenAlexOpenAlex zenginleştirmesi (özet, atıf, konular)
  • Semantic Scholaratıf sayısı (OpenAlex ile birleştirilmez)

Özet

OpenAlex İngilizce

The alkaline comet assay, or single cell gel electrophoresis, is one of the most popular methods for assessing DNA damage in human population. One of the open issues concerning this assay is the identification of those factors that can explain the large inter-individual and inter-laboratory variation. International collaborative initiatives such as the hCOMET project - a COST Action launched in 2016 - represent a valuable tool to meet this challenge. The aims of hCOMET were to establish reference values for the level of DNA damage in humans, to investigate the effect of host factors, lifestyle and exposure to genotoxic agents, and to compare different sources of assay variability. A database of 19,320 subjects was generated, pooling data from 105 studies run by 44 laboratories in 26 countries between 1999 and 2019. A mixed random effect log-linear model, in parallel with a classic meta-analysis, was applied to take into account the extensive heterogeneity of data, due to descriptor, specimen and protocol variability. As a result of this analysis interquartile intervals of DNA strand breaks (which includes alkali-labile sites) were reported for tail intensity, tail length, and tail moment (comet assay descriptors). A small variation by age was reported in some datasets, suggesting higher DNA damage in oldest age-classes, while no effect could be shown for sex or smoking habit, although the lack of data on heavy smokers has still to be considered. Finally, highly significant differences in DNA damage were found for most exposures investigated in specific studies. In conclusion, these data, which confirm that DNA damage measured by the comet assay is an excellent biomarker of exposure in several conditions, may contribute to improving the quality of study design and to the standardization of results of the comet assay in human populations.

Konular

Atıflar

OpenAlex cited_by_count. WoS veya Scopus atıf sayısı değildir; o kaynaklar için ayrı kolon yoktur.

104atıfOpenAlex · cited_by_count (önbellek / veritabanı)

Yerel katalogda bu makaleye atıf yapan 9 yayın (OpenAlex referans eşleşmesi; tam dünya listesi değildir).

  1. 2021 DNA damage in circulating leukocytes measured with the comet assay may predict the risk of deathAtıf 92 · OpenAlex
  2. 2024 Optimization of concentrations and exposure durations of commonly used positive controls in the in vitro alkaline comet assayAtıf 7 · OpenAlex
  3. 2024 Optimization of concentrations and exposure durations of commonly used positive controls in the in vitro alkaline comet assayAtıf 7 · OpenAlex
  4. 2025 Genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of polystyrene nanoplastics on human lymphocytes: A comprehensive analysisAtıf 6 · OpenAlex
  5. 2025 Genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of polystyrene nanoplastics on human lymphocytes: A comprehensive analysisAtıf 6 · OpenAlex
  6. 2025 Genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of polystyrene nanoplastics on human lymphocytes: A comprehensive analysisAtıf 6 · OpenAlex
  7. 2025 Genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of polystyrene nanoplastics on human lymphocytes: A comprehensive analysisAtıf 6 · OpenAlex
  8. 2021 Analysis of Genotoxic Damage in Different DiseasesAtıf 0 · OpenAlex
  9. 2021 Analysis of Genotoxic Damage in Different DiseasesAtıf 0 · OpenAlex

Yazarlar

22
  1. Mirta Milić 1
  2. Marcello Ceppi 2
  3. Marco Bruzzone 3
  4. Amaya Azqueta 4
  5. Gunnar Brunborg 5
  6. Roger Godschalk 6
  7. Gudrun Koppen 7
  8. Sabine Langie 8
  9. Peter Møller 9
  10. João Paulo Teixeira 10
  11. Avdulla Alija 11
  12. Diana Anderson 12
  13. Vanessa Andrade 13
  14. Cristina Andreoli 14
  15. Fisnik Asllani 15
  16. Ezgi Eyluel Bangkogl 16
  17. Magdalena Barančoková 17
  18. AYŞE NURŞEN BAŞARAN BAŞKENT ÜNİVERSİTESİ 18
  19. Elisa Boutet-Robinet 19
  20. Annamaria Buschini 20
  21. Delia Cavallo 21
  22. hCOMET Committee 22