The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Oxidative damage to DNA: do we have a reliable biomarker?
Open accessAbstract
Oxidized bases in DNA can be measured directly by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). 7,8-Dihydro-8-oxo-guanine (8-OHgua), as the most abundant oxidation product, is often regarded as an indicator of oxidative stress. Estimates of endogenous 8-OHgua levels in human lymphocyte DNA are between 2 and 8 for every 10(5) unaltered bases--a high frequency in view of the potential mutagenicity of this base alteration and of the presence of an effective base excision repair pathway in eukaryotic cells. An alternative approach to the measurement of oxidized bases makes use of repair endonucleases with appropriate lesion specificities--endonuclease III, for oxidized pyrimidines and formamidopyrimidine glycosylase for 8-OHgua. These enzymes introduce breaks at sites of damage in DNA. The comet assay (single cell gel electrophoresis) can then be used to detect the DNA breaks. This modified comet assay, like other enzyme-linked DNA breakage assays, gives a value for endogenous oxidative base damage that is more than 10-fold lower than most estimated from HPLC. It is possible that HPLC-based estimates are artificially high because oxidation of guanine occurs during isolation, storage, or hydrolysis of DNA. Using a revised DNA isolation procedure designed to decrease in vitro oxidation, we have obtained results for 8-OHgua concentrations in human lymphocytes that are closure to the figures obtained by the comet assay. It is still an open question whether 8-OHgua, measured by HPLC or by the comet assay, is a valid marker for oxidative damage.
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
Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA
Lindahl, T. (1993) · Nature · doi:10.1038/362709a0 · Cited by 5,679
Insertion of specific bases during DNA synthesis past the oxidation-damaged base 8-oxodG
Shibutani, S., Takeshita, M., & Grollman, A. P. (1991) · Nature · doi:10.1038/349431a0 · Cited by 2,224
Vegetables, fruit, and cancer. I. Epidemiology
Steinmetz, K. A., & Potter, J. D. (1991) · Cancer Causes and Control · doi:10.1007/bf00051672 · Cited by 1,118
Cited by
Single cell gel/comet assay: Guidelines for in vitro and in vivo genetic toxicology testing
Tice, R. R., Agurell, E., Anderson, D., Burlinson, B., Hartmann, A., Kobayashi, H., Miyamae, Y., Rojas, E., Ryu, J.-C., & Sasaki, Y. F. (2000) · Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis · doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-2280(2000)35:3<206::aid-em8>3.0.co;2-j · Cited by 4,860
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
Self-citationCarr, A. C., & Frei, B. (1999) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/69.6.1086 · Cited by 940
The comet assay: what can it really tell us?
Collins, A. R., Dobson, V. L., Dušinská, M., Kennedy, G., & Štětina, R. (1997) · Mutation Research - Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis · doi:10.1016/s0027-5107(97)00013-4 · Cited by 668
Self-citationMechanisms of genotoxicity. A review of in vitro and in vivo studies with engineered nanoparticles
Magdolenova, Z., Collins, A., Kumar, A., Dhawan, A., Stone, V., & Dusinska, M. (2014) · Nanotoxicology · doi:10.3109/17435390.2013.773464 · Cited by 616
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Collins, A. R., Dusinská, M., Gedik, C. M., & Stĕtina, R.
- Venue
- Environmental Health Perspectives
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 1996-05
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- suppl 3
- Pages
- 465-469
- ISSN
- 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-9924
- OpenAlex
- W1983155817
- Cited by
- 630
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Oxidative damage to DNA: do we have a reliable biomarker? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp.96104s3465
- The paper
- Collins, A. R., Dusinská, M., Gedik, C. M., & Stĕtina, R. (1996). Oxidative damage to DNA: do we have a reliable biomarker? Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.96104s3465
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.