The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative analysis of baseline 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine in mammalian cell DNA, by different methods in different laboratories: an approach to consensus
Abstract
The European Standards Committee on Oxidative DNA Damage (ESCODD) was set up to resolve the problems associated with the measurement of background levels of oxidative DNA damage (in particular 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine, or 8-oxoGua) in human cells. A tendency for DNA oxidation to occur during sample preparation prior to chromatography has been recognized as the source of a very substantial artefact. To assess the success of attempts to eliminate the artefact, ESCODD has distributed to its members standard samples of pig liver and HeLa cells for analysis. Estimates of 8-oxoGua in pig liver, using chromatographic techniques, ranged from 2.23 to 441 per 10(6) guanines, with a median of 10.47 per 10(6) guanines. Chromatographic analysis of HeLa cell DNA gave a range of 1.84 to 214 per 10(6) guanines with a median of 5.23 per 10(6) guanines. HeLa cell DNA was also analysed by an enzymic approach, in which whole cell DNA was treated with formamidopyrimidine DNA glycosylase, which nicks DNA at sites of 8-oxoGua, and the breaks measured with the comet assay, alkaline unwinding or alkaline elution. Values with these methods ranged from 0.06 to 4.988-oxoGua per 10(6) guanines, with a median of 0.79 per 10(6) guanines. Although there are clearly still serious discrepancies between methods and laboratories, the lowest estimates by chromatography (arguably those in which the artefact was best controlled) are only 2.5 times higher than the median value obtained with the enzymic approach.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Pouget, J.-P., Douki, T., Richard, M.-J., & Cadet, J. (2000) · Chemical Research in Toxicology · doi:10.1021/tx000020e · Cited by 274
Cited by
Møller, P., Azqueta, A., Boutet-Robinet, E., Koppen, G., Bonassi, S., Milić, M., Gajski, G., Costa, S., Teixeira, J. P., Costa Pereira, C., et al. (2020) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/s41596-020-0398-1 · Cited by 394
Ziech, D., Franco, R., Georgakilas, A. G., Georgakila, S., Malamou-Mitsi, V., Schoneveld, O., Pappa, A., & Panayiotidis, M. I. (2010) · Chemico-Biological Interactions · doi:10.1016/j.cbi.2010.07.010 · Cited by 274
Iron and thiol redox signaling in cancer: an exquisite balance to escape ferroptosis
Toyokuni, S., Ito, F., Yamashita, K., Okazaki, Y., & Akatsuka, S. (2017) · Free Radical Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2017.04.024 · Cited by 252
Chiorcea-Paquim, A.-M. (2022) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules27051620 · Cited by 188
Avogbe, P. H. (2004) · Carcinogenesis · doi:10.1093/carcin/bgh353 · Cited by 142
Metadata
- Venue
- Carcinogenesis
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-12-01
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2129-2133
- ISSN
- 0143-3334 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2180
- OpenAlex
- W2400025420
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative analysis of baseline 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine in mammalian cell DNA, by different methods in different laboratories: an approach to consensus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/carcin/23.12.2129
- The paper
- Comparative analysis of baseline 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine in mammalian cell DNA, by different methods in different laboratories: an approach to consensus. (2002). Carcinogenesis. https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/23.12.2129
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
