Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 630

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 access
Collins, A R, Dusinská, M, Gedik, C M, Stĕtina, R·1996·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1289/ehp.96104s3465

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 630

Metadata

Authors
Collins, A. R., Dusinská, M., Gedik, C. M., & Stĕtina, R.
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
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.