Cited by 297Carcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentAnimal testing and alternativesOptimal Experimental Design Methods

Statistical issues in the use of the comet assay

Open access
Lovell, D. P., Omori, T.·2008·Mutagenesis

Abstract

The comet or single-cell gel electrophoresis assay is now widely used in regulatory, mechanistic and biomonitoring studies using a range of in vitro and in vivo systems. Each of these has issues associated with the experimental design which determine to a large extent the statistical analyses than can be used. A key concept is that the experimental unit is the smallest 'amount' of experimental material that can be randomly assigned to a treatment: the animal for in vivo studies and the culture for in vitro studies. Biomonitoring studies, being observational rather than experimental, are vulnerable to confounding and biases. Critical factors in any statistical analysis include the identification of suitable end points, the choice of measure to represent the distribution of the comet end point in a sample of cells, estimates of variability between experimental units and the identification of the size of effects that could be considered biologically important. Power and sample size calculations can be used in conjunction with this information to identify optimum experimental sizes and provide help in combining the results of statistical analyses with other information to aid interpretation. Interpretation based upon the size of effects and their confidence intervals is preferred to that based solely upon statistical significance tests. Statistical issues associated with the design and subsequent analyses of current validation studies for the comet assay include the identification of acceptable levels of intra- and inter-laboratory repeatability and reproducibility and criteria for dichotomizing results into positive or negative.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mutage/gen015

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Characteristics of data such as experimental unit, data type, and assumed distribution guide experimental features including replication, number of test concentrations, and experimental repetitions.

    “The characteristics of the data, such as the experimental unit, the data type, and the (assumed) distribution, will guide various experimental features, including different levels of replication, number of test concentrations, and experimental repetitions (Lovell and Omori, 2008).”

    From Toward good in vitro reporting standards (2019) · cites this paper as Lovell and Omori, 2008

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Montgomery, D. C. (1997) Design and Analysis of Experiments. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, NY.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lovell, D. P., & Omori, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Surrey (GB)
  • Kyoto University (JP)
Corresponding author
Lovell, D. P.
Venue
Mutagenesis
Published
2008-02-17
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
171-182
ISSN
  • 0267-8357 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3804
OpenAlex
W2142519394
Cited by
297
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 29
FWCI
1.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Mutagenesis (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
Keywords
comet assay, statistical design, biomonitoring, confounding and bias, sample size and power, effect size, confidence intervals, assay validation, repeatability and reproducibility, experimental units, mutagenicity testing
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, DNA Damage, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Comet Assay

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