Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41807781›Full record

ReviewArchives of toxicology2026

Towards a validation of the standard and enzyme-linked comet assay: a retrospective variability analysis.

Peter Møller, Carina Ladeira, Christina Ziemann, Siegfried Knasmueller, Miroslav Mišík, Henriqueta Louro, Maria João Silva, Ann Karin Olsen, Amaya Azqueta, Sabine A S Langie and 4 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of toxicology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Peter MøllerSection of Environmental Health, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. pemo@sund.ku.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-2021-1249
Carina LadeiraEscola Superior de Saúde de Lisboa, Polytechnic University of Lisbon, Lisboa, Portugal.
Christina ZiemannGenetic Toxicology, Fraunhofer Institute for Toxicology and Experimental Medicine ITEM, Hannover, Germany.
Siegfried KnasmuellerCenter for Cancer Research, Medical University of Vienna, Borschkegasse 8a, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Miroslav MišíkCenter for Cancer Research, Medical University of Vienna, Borschkegasse 8a, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Henriqueta LouroDepartment of Human Genetics, National Institute of Health Dr. Ricardo Jorge, Av. Padre Cruz, 1649-016, Lisbon, Portugal.
Maria João SilvaDepartment of Human Genetics, National Institute of Health Dr. Ricardo Jorge, Av. Padre Cruz, 1649-016, Lisbon, Portugal.
Ann Karin OlsenHealth Effects Laboratory, Department of Environmental Chemistry and Health Effects, The Climate and Environmental Research Institute NILU, P.O. Box 100, 2027, Kjeller, Norway.
Amaya AzquetaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy and Nutrition, University of Navarra, Irunlarrea 1, 31008, Pamplona, Spain.
Sabine A S LangieDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, School for Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Stefano BonassiDepartment of Human Sciences and Quality of Life Promotion, San Raffaele University, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Maria DusinskaHealth Effects Laboratory, Department of Environmental Chemistry and Health Effects, The Climate and Environmental Research Institute NILU, P.O. Box 100, 2027, Kjeller, Norway.
Goran GajskiDivision of Toxicology, Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Zagreb, Croatia.
Andrew CollinsNorgenotech AS, Ullernchassern, 64/66, 0379, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

European Regional Development Fund project Rec-IMI KK.01.1.1.02.0007European Union-Next Generation EU BioMolTox 533-03-23-0006HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme 10109842HORIZON-WIDERA 101158832
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The comet assay is one of the most popular tests for genotoxicity in cell cultures, non-animal species, animals and humans. It has high sensitivity to detect low levels of DNA damage, can be applied to non-proliferating cells, requires relatively few cells, is technically simple, and is low cost. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) adopted in 2016 the in vivo comet assay for measurement of DNA strand breaks in animal tissues. There is a desire to expand the comet assay to genotoxicity testing in cell cultures, including the detection of oxidatively damaged DNA by incubation of gel-embedded nucleoids with DNA repair enzymes, especially formamidopyrimidine DNA glycosylase (Fpg) which converts oxidised purines to DNA breaks. Based on available information in the literature, this review provides a retrospective evaluation of the validation status of this assay, focusing on accuracy and reliability in genotoxicity testing in vitro. Information on accuracy is scarce, although limited evidence suggests levels of Fpg-sensitive sites are similar to those obtained by Fpg-linked alkaline unwinding and alkaline elution assays. Several ring studies have shown that estimated background levels of DNA breaks vary within and between laboratories. However, ring studies indicate good intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility of the standard assay on ionizing radiation-exposed and the Fpg-linked assay on potassium bromate exposed cells. Further studies are needed to assess the reproducibility in multiple laboratories using coded samples of non-genotoxins and genotoxins. Nevertheless, the available results indicate the comet assay is a reliable in vitro genotoxicity test.

Indexed as

Comet AssayDNA DamageAnimalsDNA-Formamidopyrimidine GlycosylaseHumansReproducibility of ResultsDNA-Formamidopyrimidine GlycosylaseComet assayDNA damageFpg-sensitive sitesIn vitro genotoxicityValidation

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.