The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The comet assay: topical issues
Open accessAbstract
The comet assay is a versatile and sensitive method for measuring single- and double-strand breaks in DNA. The mechanism of formation of comets (under neutral or alkaline conditions) is best understood by analogy with nucleoids, in which relaxation of DNA supercoiling in a structural loop of DNA by a single DNA break releases that loop to extend into a halo-or, in the case of the comet assay, to be pulled towards the anode under the electrophoretic field. A consideration of the simple physics underlying electrophoresis leads to a better understanding of the assay. The sensitivity of the assay is only fully appreciated when it is calibrated: between one hundred and several thousand breaks per cell can be determined. By including lesion-specific enzymes in the assay, its range and sensitivity are greatly increased, but it is important to bear in mind that their specificity is not absolute. Different approaches to quantitation of the comet assay are discussed. Arguments are presented against trying to apply the comet assay to the study of apoptosis. Finally, some of the advantages and disadvantages of using the comet assay on lymphocyte samples collected in human studies are rehearsed.
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
A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells
Singh, N. P., McCoy, M. T., Tice, R. R., & Schneider, E. L. (1988) · Experimental Cell Research · doi:10.1016/0014-4827(88)90265-0 · Cited by 10,828
Microelectrophoretic study of radiation-induced DNA damages in individual mammalian cells
Ostling, O., & Johanson, K. J. (1984) · Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications · doi:10.1016/0006-291x(84)90411-x · Cited by 1,694
Direct enzymic detection of endogenous oxidative base damage in human lymphocyte DNA
Collins, A. R., Duthie, S. J., & Dobson, V. L. (1993) · Carcinogenesis · doi:10.1093/carcin/14.9.1733 · Cited by 828
Self-citationComet assay in human biomonitoring studies: Reliability, validation, and applications
Collins, A., Dušinská, M., Franklin, M., Somorovská, M., Petrovská, H., Duthie, S., Fillion, L., Panayiotidis, M., Rašlová, K., & Vaughan, N. (1997) · Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis · doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-2280(1997)30:2<139::aid-em6>3.0.co;2-i · Cited by 659
Self-citationESCODD (European Standards Committee on Oxidative DNA Damage), Gedik, C. M., & Collins, A. (2005) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.04-1767fje · Cited by 449
Self-citationhOGG1 recognizes oxidative damage using the comet assay with greater specificity than FPG or ENDOIII
Smith, C. C., O'Donovan, M. R., & Martin, E. A. (2006) · Mutagenesis · doi:10.1093/mutage/gel019 · Cited by 289
Self-citationVodicka, P. (2003) · Carcinogenesis · doi:10.1093/carcin/bgh064 · Cited by 249
Nutritional modulation of DNA repair in a human intervention study
Collins, A. R. (2003) · Carcinogenesis · doi:10.1093/carcin/24.3.511 · Cited by 243
Self-citationRelease of normal bases from intact DNA by a native DNA repair enzyme
Berdal, K. G. (1998) · The EMBO Journal · doi:10.1093/emboj/17.2.363 · Cited by 181
Dušinská, M., & Collins, A. R. (1996) · Alternatives to Laboratory Animals · doi:10.1177/026119299602400315 · Cited by 153
Self-citation
Cited by
Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines
Gasnier, C., Dumont, C., Benachour, N., Clair, E., Chagnon, M.-C., & Séralini, G.-E. (2009) · Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.tox.2009.06.006 · Cited by 658
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
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
Guryanova, O. A., Shank, K., Spitzer, B., Luciani, L., Koche, R. P., Garrett-Bakelman, F. E., Ganzel, C., Durham, B. H., Mohanty, A., Hoermann, G., et al. (2016) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm.4210 · Cited by 256
Impact of obesity and overweight on DNA stability: Few facts and many hypotheses
Setayesh, T., Nersesyan, A., Mišík, M., Ferk, F., Langie, S., Andrade, V. M., Haslberger, A., & Knasmüller, S. (2018) · Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research · doi:10.1016/j.mrrev.2018.07.001 · Cited by 98
Metadata
- Authors
- Collins, A. R., Oscoz, A. A., Brunborg, G., Gaivao, I., Giovannelli, L., Kruszewski, M., Smith, C. C., & Stetina, R.
- Venue
- Mutagenesis
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-02-17
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 143-151
- ISSN
- 0267-8357 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3804
- OpenAlex
- W2104336168
- Cited by
- 991
- References
- 26
- FWCI
- 19.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: The comet assay: topical issues. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/mutage/gem051
- The paper
- Collins, A. R., Oscoz, A. A., Brunborg, G., Gaivao, I., Giovannelli, L., Kruszewski, M., Smith, C. C., & Stetina, R. (2008). The comet assay: topical issues. Mutagenesis. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/gem051
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.
