The DOI matches its Crossref record.
hOGG1 recognizes oxidative damage using the comet assay with greater specificity than FPG or ENDOIII
Abstract
The European Standards Committee on Oxidative DNA Damage (ESCODD) recommended the use of the lesion-specific repair enzyme, formamidopyrimidine DNA-glycosylase (FPG) in the comet assay to detect oxidative DNA damage. In the present study, FPG was compared with endonuclease III (ENDOIII) and human 8-hydroxyguanine DNA-glycosylase (hOGG1) for the ability to modify the sensitivity of the comet assay. Mouse lymphoma L5178Y cells were treated with dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO) as a standard solvent or reference agents known to induce oxidative damage (gamma irradiation and potassium bromate) or alkylation (methyl methanesulfonate, MMS; ethylnitrosurea, ENU). Using DMSO even up to toxic concentrations, no increase in breaks was seen with FPG, ENDOIII or hOGG1. With gamma irradiation (1-10 Gy), dose-related increases in breaks were seen with all three enzymes. FPG and hOGG1 gave similar increases in breaks after potassium bromate treatment between 0.25 and 2.5 mmol/l, but ENDOIII showed an increase only at the highest concentration, 2.5 mmol/l. Following MMS treatment (5-23 micromol/l), FPG induced a dramatic increase in breaks compared with control levels and ENDOIII also showed a significant but smaller increase; in marked contrast, hOGG1 gave no increase. With ENU (0.5-2.0 mmol/l), increases in breaks were seen with FPG and ENDOIII at 1 and 2 mmol/l but, again, no increase was observed with hOGG1. These data indicate that all three endonucleases recognize oxidative DNA damage and, in addition, FPG and ENDOIII also recognize alkylation damage. Therefore, caution should be taken when using FPG and ENDOIII in the comet assay with an agent that has an unknown mode of action since any additional strand breaks induced by either enzyme cannot necessarily be ascribed to oxidative damage. The use of hOGG1 in the modified comet assay offers a useful alternative to FPG and is apparently more specific for 8-oxoguanine and methyl-fapy-guanine.
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
Cited by
The comet assay: topical issues
Collins, A. R., Oscoz, A. A., Brunborg, G., Gaivao, I., Giovannelli, L., Kruszewski, M., Smith, C. C., & Stetina, R. (2008) · Mutagenesis · doi:10.1093/mutage/gem051 · Cited by 991
Self-citationThe comet assay: A sensitive method for detecting DNA damage in individual cells
Liao, W., McNutt, M. A., & Zhu, W.-G. (2009) · Methods · doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2009.02.016 · Cited by 339
Measurement of oxidatively generated base damage in cellular DNA
Cadet, J., Douki, T., & Ravanat, J.-L. (2011) · Mutation Research - Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis · doi:10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2011.02.004 · Cited by 136
Gene expression profiling reveals new protective roles for vitamin C in human skin cells
Duarte, T. L., Cooke, M. S., & Jones, G. D. D. (2009) · Free Radical Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2008.09.028 · Cited by 123
Oxidatively damaged DNA in animals exposed to particles
Møller, P., Danielsen, P. H., Jantzen, K., Roursgaard, M., & Loft, S. (2013) · Critical Reviews in Toxicology · doi:10.3109/10408444.2012.756456 · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith, C. C., O'Donovan, M. R., & Martin, E. A.
- Venue
- Mutagenesis
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-04-05
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 185-190
- ISSN
- 0267-8357 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3804
- OpenAlex
- W2161940948
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.46
- 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: hOGG1 recognizes oxidative damage using the comet assay with greater specificity than FPG or ENDOIII. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/mutage/gel019
- The paper
- Smith, C. C., O'Donovan, M. R., & Martin, E. A. (2006). hOGG1 recognizes oxidative damage using the comet assay with greater specificity than FPG or ENDOIII. Mutagenesis. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/gel019
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.
