Overnight Lysis Improves the Efficiency of Detection of DNA Damage in the Alkaline Comet Assay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to detect DNA damage using the alkaline comet assay depends on pH, lysis time and temperature during lysis. However, it is not known whether different lysis conditions identify different types of DNA damage or simply measure the same damage with different efficiencies. Results support the latter interpretation for radiation, but not for the alkylating agent MNNG. For X-ray-induced damage, cells showed the same amount of damage, regardless of lysis pH (12.3 compared to >13). However, increasing the duration of lysis at 5 degrees C from 1 h to more than 6 h increased the amount of DNA damage detected by almost twofold. Another twofold increase in apparent damage was observed by conducting lysis at room temperature (22 degrees C) for 6 h, but at the expense of a higher background level of DNA damage. The oxygen enhancement ratio and the rate of rejoining of single-strand breaks after irradiation were similar regardless of pH and lysis time, consistent with more efficient detection of strand breaks rather than detection of damage to the DNA bases. Conversely, after MNNG treatment, DNA damage was dependent on both lysis time and pH. With the higher-pH lysis, there was a reduction in the ratio of oxidative base damage to strand breaks as revealed using treatment with endonuclease III and formamidopyrimidine glycosylase. Therefore, our current results support the hypothesis that the increased sensitivity of longer lysis at higher pH for detecting radiation-induced DNA damage is due primarily to an increase in efficiency for detecting strand breaks, probably by allowing more time for DNA unwinding and diffusion before electrophoresis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".