The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Statistical issues in the use of the comet assay
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
An Analysis of Transformations
Box, G. E. P., & Cox, D. R. (1964) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1964.tb00553.x · Cited by 15,356
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
Nelder, J. A., & Wedderburn, R. W. M. (1972) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2344614 · Cited by 7,703
Addelman, S., Box, G. E. P., Hunter, W. G., & Hunter, J. S. (1979) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1267766 · Cited by 6,753
A Multiple Comparison Procedure for Comparing Several Treatments with a Control
Dunnett, C. W. (1955) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1955.10501294 · Cited by 6,097
American society for testing and materials
Mather, B., & Etris, S. F. (2006) · Kluwer Academic Publishers eBooks · doi:10.1007/0-387-30720-6_5 · Cited by 5,561
Single cell gel/comet assay: Guidelines for in vitro and in vivo genetic toxicology testing
Tice, R. R., Agurell, E., Anderson, D. C., Burlinson, B., Hartmann, A., Kobayashi, H., Miyamae, Y., Rojas, E., Ryu, J., & Sasaki, Y. F. (2000) · Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis · doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-2280(2000)35:3 · Cited by 4,885
Statistics for experimenters. An introduction to design, data analysis, and model building.
Box, G. E. P., Hunter, W. G., & Hunter, J. S. (1978) · Cited by 4,021
The Comet Assay for DNA Damage and Repair: Principles, Applications, and Limitations
Collins, A. R. (2004) · Molecular Biotechnology · doi:10.1385/mb:26:3:249 · Cited by 2,892
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Montgomery, D. C. (1997) Design and Analysis of Experiments. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, NY.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The essential comet assay: a comprehensive guide to measuring DNA damage and repair
Azqueta, A., & Collins, A. R. (2013) · Archives of Toxicology · doi:10.1007/s00204-013-1070-0 · Cited by 500
Möller, P., Azqueta, A., Boutet-Robinet, E. A., Koppen, G., Bonassi, S., Milić, M., Gajski, G., Costa, S., Teixeira, J. P., Pereira, C. C., et al. (2020) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/s41596-020-0398-1 · Cited by 398
Plewa, M. J., Simmons, J. E., Richardson, S. D., & Wagner, E. D. (2010) · Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis · doi:10.1002/em.20585 · Cited by 349
The comet assay in human biomonitoring: gene-environment interactions
Dušinská, M., & Collins, A. R. (2008) · Mutagenesis · doi:10.1093/mutage/gen007 · Cited by 324
The comet assay in nanotoxicology research
Karlsson, H. L. (2010) · Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry · doi:10.1007/s00216-010-3977-0 · Cited by 236
Metadata
- Authors
- Lovell, D. P., & Omori, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Surrey (GB)
- Kyoto University (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Lovell, D. P.
- ORCID
- Omori, T.
- Venue
- Mutagenesis
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
