1

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

DRAFT OECD GUIDELINE FOR THE TESTING OF CHEMICALS

Rodent alkaline single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) assay

INTRODUCTION

1. OECD Test Guidelines (TGs) are available for a wide range of in vitro genotoxicity assays

that are able to detect DNA damage, gene mutation and/or chromosomal aberrations. There

are TGs for in vivo endpoints (i.e. chromosomal aberrations, gene mutations and DNA

repair as unscheduled DNA synthesis); however, these do not directly measure DNA

damage. The alkaline single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) assay fulfills the need for

practical and widely available in vivo tests for measurement of DNA damage induction in

multiple tissues.

2. The Comet assay has been reviewed and recommendations have been published by various

international groups (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11). The initial event of a

mutation is modification of DNA. Failure to repair or error-prone repair of modified DNA

can lead to DNA strand breakage, and the Comet assay is able to visualize the strand breaks

and alkali-labile lesions by alkaline treatment to single strand DNA followed by

electrophoresis. Based on the molecular size, undamaged DNA remains in the nucleus

during electrophoresis but smaller fragments move from the nucleus and assume the shape

of a comet (the nucleus) with a tail.

3. Despite the international recommendations referred to above, a formal validation of the in

vivo rodent Comet assay was not undertaken until recently. This Test Guideline is

t he re fo re based on t he Comet assay method protocol (12), which w a s d e v e l o p e d

d u r i n g the MHLW (the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare) -sponsored validation

study conducted be t we en 2006 and 2012. This validation study was coordinated by the

Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM), in conjunction with

the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), the Interagency

Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) and the

Korean Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (KOCVAM).

4. The Comet assay method was evaluated by the OECD coordinated peer review panel

supported by JaCVAM. This Test Guideline includes the recommended use and limitations

2

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

of the Comet assay method based on these evaluations.

5. Definitions of key terms are set out in the Annex.

INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS

6. The Comet assay is a simple method for measuring DNA strand breaks in eukaryotic cells.

Cells embedded in agarose on a microscope slide are lysed with detergent and high salt to

form nucleoids containing supercoiled loops of DNA linked to the nuclear matrix.

Electrophoresis at high pH results in structures resembling comets, observed by

fluorescence microscopy; the intensity of the comet tail relative to the head reflects the

number of DNA breaks and the size of the resulting fragments (12) (13) (14).

7. These rodent in vivo Comet assays are especially relevant to assessing genotoxic hazard in

that the assays’ responses are dependent upon in vivo metabolism, pharmacokinetics, DNA

repair processes, and translesion DNA synthesis, although these may vary among species,

among tissues and among the types of DNA damage. The DNA lesion is the initial event of

gene mutation and/or chromosomal aberrations, and an in vivo assay for DNA damage is

therefore useful for further investigation of genotoxic effects detected by an in vitro

system, and for following up results of tests using other in vivo endpoints. Whilst TG 488

(46) and TG 474 (47) are useful follow-up in vivo tests for chemicals inducing gene

mutations or chromosomal aberrations in vitro, respectively, the Comet assay is a useful in

vivo follow-up for chemicals inducing both gene mutations and chromosomal aberrations in

vitro.

8. If there is evidence that the test substance, or a relevant metabolite, will not reach any of

the tissues of interest, it is not appropriate to perform an in vivo Comet assay.

9. The Comet assay has applications in testing new chemicals for genotoxicity, monitoring

environmental contamination with genotoxins, human biomonitoring for occupational

exposure and molecular epidemiology, and fundamental research in DNA damage and

repair (14) (15) (16). Several modifications, e.g, neutral or enzyme method have been

developed (15) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21). However, this guideline focuses on the alkaline

assay for assessing DNA-damaging potential of chemicals for regulatory purposes.

10. Recent strategies for genotoxicity testing have suggested that the Comet assay would, as a

3

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

second in vivo assay, be preferable to the rodent liver UDS assay in genotoxicity

evaluation of chemicals for regulatory purposes (22) (23) (24). A single study can combine

the analysis of micronuclei in erythrocytes with the Comet assay in appropriately selected

tissues (22) (23) (25) (26) (27) (28). The selected tissue(s) will be determined by

knowledge of metabolism and distribution, potential for site-of-contact effects, or

knowledge of the mechanism of genotoxicity/carcinogenicity.

11. Only the liver and stomach were used in the international validation study, because the liver

is the most active organ to metabolize chemicals and also most frequently a target for

carcinogenicity, and the stomach is usually first site of contact for chemicals after oral

exposure, and therefore, this guideline is constructed based on data generated with these

two tissues. However, the technique is equally applicable to any tissues from which single

cell or nuclei suspensions can be made. Therefore any tissues from chemically treated

animals can be investigated based on existing knowledge of the chemical or purpose of the

study. Thus the genotoxic potential of the chemical can be assayed in the target organs of

carcinogenic and/or other toxic effects. Such information is important for the risk

characterization of the chemical. However the use of tissues other than liver and stomach

should be justified.

12. There are many publications of the Comet assay using organs other than liver and stomach,

e.g., multiple organs (29) (30), kidney (31) (32), trachea (33), skin (34), urinary bladder

(35) (36), or testis/sperm (20) (37) (38). It has been shown that there was no essential

difference in the assay result whether isolated cells or nuclei were used (39). Also the

method to isolate cells/nuclei (e.g., homogenizing, mincing and mesh filtration) did not

give different results (40). The effects on DNA migration of altering other aspects of the

methodology have been also investigated (41) (42) (43).

13. There are several endpoints for the Comet assay but the DNA content in the tail (% tail

DNA) is recommended to assess DNA damage (16). After analysis of sufficient nuclei, the

data are analyzed with appropriate methods to judge the assay results, e.g., in the JaCVAM

validation study the mean of percent tail DNA was statistically compared with that of the

vehicle control group to assess the genotoxicity of the test chemical (45). It should be noted

that fragmentation of the DNA can be induced not only by chemical genotoxicity but also

during the process of cell death, i.e., apoptosis and necrosis. Sometimes, however, it is

difficult to distinguish between genotoxicity and apoptosis/necrosis by the shape of nucleus

and comet tail after electrophoresis, and investigators have to make a subjective decision.

4

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

To help with such subjective decisions, an atlas of the Comet assay with many examples

has been published (48).

14. Sufficient data are available to support the use of the Comet assay in any organs of treated

animals. The method has been shown to be reproducible within and between laboratories,

to apply to the intended domain (i.e. detection of DNA damage), and to be appropriately

predictive of the carcinogenicity of test chemicals.

15. This assay is recommended as an in vivo genotoxicity method in the ICH S2(R1) (24) for

pharmaceutical drugs for human use, and is also recommended by EFSA (57) and UK

COM (58). The method, although without any standard methodological document, has

been widely used, including for regulatory purposes, for many years to assess genotoxicity

in vivo.

PRINCIPLE OF THE METHOD

16. Animals are treated with a test chemical through an appropriate administration route once,

twice or three times separated by 24 h intervals, or they can be treated for even longer

period, e.g., for 28 days (49)(23). Animals are killed and tissues are sampled at 2 to 6 hours

after the last treatment of two or more daily administrations, or at both 2-6 and 16-26 hours

after a single administration (16). Organs of interest are dissected and free cell/nucleus

suspensions are prepared. The use of an early sampling time is essential because the lesions

in the DNA are repaired quickly and efficiently. To fulfill animal welfare requirements, this

assay can be incorporated into other toxicological studies, e.g., repeated dose toxicity study,

or the endpoint can be combined with other genotoxicity endpoints, e.g., with the rodent

micronucleus assay (25)(26)(49).

17. Single cell and/or nucleus suspensions from the tissues of interest are embedded in soft

agar to so as to immobilize them on glass slides. To remover cellular and/or nuclear

membrane, cells/nuclei are treated with detergent to produce naked nuclei. DNA strand

breaks and alkali-labile lesions form smaller DNA fragments when treated with strong

alkali e.g., pH13 or above. The nuclei in the agar on glass slide are then subjected to

electrophoresis. By adjusting the voltage, current, and electrophoresis period, normal DNA

molecules remain in the position where the nucleus had been on the slide, while smaller

fragments migrate towards the anode, and the extent of migration is determined by the size

5

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

of the fragments.

18. After electrophoresis, the DNA is visualized using a fluorescent nucleic acid-specific stain

e.g., SYBR Gold, Green I, or ethidium bromide, followed by image analysis under a

fluorescent microscope. Images are analyzed by an image-analyzer to measure several

parameters, e.g., length of tail, DNA content in the tail, and from these other measures such

as tail moment can be calculated (50). The most frequently used parameter, and

recommended by the validation study, is DNA content in the tail (% DNA in tail) although

other parameters can also be used. After analysis of nuclei from control and treated groups,

histograms of the measured parameters from each cell are made so as to provide an

overview of the effect of treatment. The mean (or possibly median) value of % tail DNA

represents treatment to be compared with that of negative control.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD

Preparations

Selection of animal species

19. Commonly used laboratory strains of healthy young adult animals should be used. Rats are

most often the experimental animals of choice as they are most commonly used in toxicity

assessment of chemicals, although mice can be also selected. Rats may be considered as the

first choice in order to correlate data with that from a rat toxicity study, or to investigate the

mechanism of carcinogenesis for a tumour seen in rats, and are relevant if rat metabolism is

known to be representative of human metabolism. Other animal species including human

beings can theoretically and practically be used if justified, but this TG is focused on

rodents.

Housing and feeding conditions

20. The temperature in the experimental animal room ideally should be 22oC (±3

oC). Although

the relative humidity should be at least 30% and preferably not exceed 70% other than

during room cleaning, the goal should be to maintain a relative humidity of 50-60%.

Lighting should be artificial, with a daily sequence of 12 hours light, followed by 12 hours

dark. For feeding, conventional laboratory diets may be used with an unlimited supply of

drinking water. The choice of diet may be influenced by the need to ensure a suitable

6

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

admixture of a test substance when administered by this route. Animals should be housed in

small groups (no more than five) of the same sex if no aggressive behavior is expected.

Animals may be housed individually if scientifically justified.

Preparation of the animals

21. Healthy young adult animals (usually 6-10 weeks old at start of treatment) are randomly

assigned to the control (negative and positive) and treatment groups. The animals are

identified uniquely. The animals are acclimated to the laboratory conditions for at least five

days. Cages should be arranged in such a way that possible effects due to cage placement

are minimized. At the commencement of the study, the weight variation of animals should

be minimal and not exceed ± 20% of the mean weight of each sex.

Preparation of doses

22. Solid test substances should be dissolved or suspended in appropriate solvents or vehicles

or admixed in diet or drinking water prior to dosing of the animals. Liquid test substances

may be dosed directly or diluted prior to dosing. For inhalation exposures, test materials

can be administered as gas, vapour, or a solid/liquid aerosol, depending on their

physicochemical properties. Fresh preparations of the test substance should be employed

unless stability data demonstrate the acceptability of storage.

Test Conditions

Solvent/vehicle

23. The solvent/vehicle should not produce toxic effects at the dose volumes used, and should

not be suspected of chemical reaction with the test substance. If other than well-known

solvents/vehicles are used, their inclusion should be supported with reference data

indicating their compatibility. It is recommended that wherever possible, the use of an

aqueous solvent/vehicle should be considered first.

Positive controls

24. Concurrent positive control animals should normally be used. When concurrent positive

controls are used, it is not necessary to administer them by the same route as the test

7

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

substance; however, the positive controls should be known to induce DNA lesions in one or

more tissues of interest for the test substance. The doses of the positive control chemicals

should be selected so as to produce weak or moderate effects that critically assess the

performance and sensitivity of the assay. Examples of positive control substances and some

of their target tissues are included in Table 1.

Table 1: Examples of positive control substances and some of their target tissues

Chemicals and CAS No.

Ethyl methanesulfonate (CAS RN 62-50-0) for liver and stomach

Ethyl nitrosourea (CAS RN 759-73-9) for liver and stomach

Methyl methanesulfonate (CAS RN 66-27-3) for liver and stomach

N-Nitrosodimethylamine (CAS RN 62-75-9) for liver

Negative controls

25. Negative controls, treated with solvent or vehicle alone, and otherwise treated in the same

way as the treatment groups, should be included for every sampling time. In the absence of

historical or published control data showing that no deleterious or mutagenic effects are

induced by the chosen solvent/vehicle, untreated or established vehicle controls should also

be included for every sampling time in order to establish acceptability of the vehicle

control.

Verification of laboratory proficiency

26. Competency in these assays should be established by demonstrating the ability to

reproduce expected results from published validation study data (45) for mean % tail DNA

of positive control substances (including weak responses) such as those listed in Table 1,

and vehicle controls. Dose-effect relationships should also be demonstrated, where

appropriate. During the course of these investigations, the laboratory can establish a

historical positive control range and distribution, and a historical negative control range and

distribution. Re-evaluation of laboratory proficiency is recommended if major changes to

the experimental conditions are proposed for the assay.

PROCEDURE

Number and Sex of Animals

8

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

27. The number of animals per group should be predetermined to be sufficient to provide the

statistical power necessary to detect at least a doubling in genotoxic effect. Group sizes will

consist of a minimum of 5 animals; however, if the statistical power is insufficient, the

number of animals should be increased as required. Male animals should normally be used.

There may be cases where testing females alone would be justified; for example, when

testing human female-specific drugs, or when investigating female-specific metabolism. If

there are significant differences between the sexes in terms of toxicity or metabolism, then

both males and females will be required.

Administration Period

28. Based on observations made in the validation study, three daily treatments is generally

considered preferable for producing sufficient sensitivity to detect genotoxic effects,

whilst at the same time allowing the assay to be combined with the micronucleus test.

Alternative treatment regimens may be appropriate for some evaluations, and these

alternative-dosing schedules should be scientifically justified in the protocol. Samples from

extended dose regimens (e.g., 28-day daily dosing) are acceptable as long as a positive

effect has been demonstrated for this study or, for a negative study, as long as toxicity to

the target tissue(s) has been demonstrated or the limit dose has been used, and dosing

continued until the time of sampling. Test substances also may be administered as a split

dose, i.e., two treatments on the same day separated by no more than a few hours, to

facilitate administering a large volume of material, although adjustments may need to be

made to accommodate the early sampling time following the last dose.

Dose Levels

29. If a preliminary range-finding study is performed because there are no suitable data

available to aid in dose selection, it should be performed in the same laboratory, using the

same species, strain, sex, and treatment regimen to be used in the main study. The

range-finding study should be started with the most likely dose to cause toxicity, using a

small number of animals (e.g. 2 per sex). If the MTD is not defined, a further group of

animals should be exposed to a higher or lower dose depending on the clinical effects of

the first dose. This strategy should be repeated until the appropriate MTD is found. The

highest dose level should be chosen with the aim of inducing toxic effects but not death or

severe suffering (i.e., the maximum tolerated dose [MTD]). The highest dose may also be

9

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

defined as a dose that produces toxicity in the target tissue(s).

30. Substances with specific biological activities at low non-toxic doses (such as hormones

and mitogens), and substances that exhibit saturation of toxicokinetic properties may be

exceptions to the dose-setting criteria and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

31. If the test substance produces toxicity, the MTD and a descending sequence of at least

two additional appropriately (less than SQR(10)) spaced dose levels should be selected for

each sampling time, with a view to demonstrating any dose-related response. Studies

intending to more fully characterize the quantitative dose-response information may require

additional dose groups. The dose levels used should preferably cover a range from the

maximum to little or no toxicity.

Limit test

32. If dose range-finding experiments, or existing data from related animal strains, indicate that

a treatment regime of at least the limit dose (described below) produces no observable toxic

effects (including no toxicity in the tissue[s] of interest), and if genotoxicity would not be

expected based upon in vitro genotoxicity studies or data from structurally related

substances, then a full study using three dose levels may not be considered necessary. In

such cases, a single dose of the test substance, at the limit dose, may be sufficient. For an

administration period of 1-3 day(s) daily treatment up to 14 days, the limit dose is 2000

mg/kg body weight/day and of more than 14 days that is 1000 mg/kg/day.

Administration of Doses

33. The test substance is usually administered by gavage using a stomach tube or a suitable

intubation cannula. However, the anticipated route of human exposure should be

considered when designing an assay. Therefore, other routes of exposure (such as, drinking

water, subcutaneous, intravenous, topical, inhalation, intratracheal, dietary, or implantation)

may be acceptable where they can be justified. Intraperitoneal injection is not

recommended since it is not a physiologically relevant route of human exposure. The

maximum volume of liquid that can be administered by gavage or injection at one time

depends on the size of the test animal. The volume should not exceed 2 mL/100g body

weight. The use of volumes greater than this should be justified. Except for irritating or

corrosive substances, which will normally reveal exacerbated effects at higher

10

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

concentrations, variability in test volume should be minimized by adjusting the

concentration to ensure a constant volume at all dose levels.

Sampling Time

34. The sampling time is a critical variable because it is determined by the period needed for

DNA damage to be induced but before that damage is removed, repaired or leads to cell

death This period may be chemical-specific. A suitable compromise for the measurement of

genotoxicity at 2-6 h after the last treatment for two or more treatments, or at both 2-6 and

16-26 h after a single administration.

Observations

35. General clinical observations should be made at least once a day preferably at the same

time(s) each day and considering the peak period of anticipated effects after dosing. and the

health condition of the animals should be recorded. At least twice daily, all animals should

be observed for morbidity and mortality. For longer duration studies, all animals should be

weighed at least once a week, and at sacrifice. Measurements of food consumption should

be made at least weekly. If the test substance is administered via the drinking water, water

consumption should be measured at each change of water and at least weekly. Animals

exhibiting non-lethal indicators of excess toxicity should be euthanized prior to completion

of the test period.

Tissue Collection

36. The rationale for tissue collection should be defined clearly although the most frequently

used tissues for the Comet assay are liver and glandular stomach or duodenum. Since it is

possible to study genotoxicity induction in virtually any tissue, the selection of tissues to be

collected should be based upon the reason for conducting the study and any existing

genotoxicity, carcinogenicity or toxicity data for the test chemical under investigation.

Important factors for consideration should include the route of administration (based on

likely human exposure route(s)), the predicted tissue distribution, and the possible

mechanism of action. In the absence of any background information, several somatic

tissues as may be of interest should be collected.

Preparation of specimen

11

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

37. Animals will be humanely killed at the appropriate time (or times) after the last treatment

with a test substance, consistent with animal welfare and 3Rs. Tissues removed will be

placed into ice-cold mincing buffer, rinsed sufficiently with the cold mincing buffer to

remove residual blood, and stored on ice until processed. For histopathology in case of

positive findings, samples will be obtained and fixed (45).

.

38. Single cell/nuclei preparations should be made within one hour after animal sacrifice. The

liver and the stomach, as examples, should be processed as follows:

Liver: A portion of the left lateral lobe of the liver should be removed and washed in the

cold mincing buffer until as much blood as possible has been removed. The portion should

be minced with a pair of fine scissors to release the cells. The cell suspension should be

stored on ice to allow large clumps to settle (or, the cell suspension should be strained

through a Cell Strainer to remove lumps and the remaining suspension should be placed on

ice), and the supernatant should be used to prepare comet slides.

Stomach: The stomach should be cut open and washed free from food using cold mincing

buffer. The forestomach should be removed and discarded. The glandular stomach should

then be placed into cold mincing buffer and incubated on ice for from 15 to 30 minutes.

After incubation, the surface epithelia should be gently scraped two times using a scalpel

blade or a Teflon scraper. This layer should be discarded and the gastric mucosa rinsed with

the cold mincing buffer. The stomach epithelia should be carefully scraped 4-5 times (or

more, if necessary) with a scalpel blade or Teflon scraper to release the cells. The cell

suspension should be stored on ice to allow large clumps to settle (or, the cell suspension

should be strained with a Cell Strainer to remove clumps and the remaining suspension

should be placed on ice), and samples of the supernatant used to prepare comet slides.

39. Slide preparation should be done within one hour after single cell/nuclei preparation.

Comet slides should be prepared using laboratory specific procedures. The volume of the

cell suspension added to 0.50% low melting point agarose to make the slides should not

decrease the percentage of low melting point agarose by more than 10% (i.e., not below

0.45%) .

12

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

40. Once prepared, the slides should be immersed in chilled lysing solution overnight in a

refrigerator under a light proof condition. After this incubation period, the slides should be

rinsed in purified water or neutralization solution to remove residual detergent and salts

prior to the alkali unwinding step.

Unwinding and electrophoresis

41. Slides should be randomly placed onto the platform of a submarine-type electrophoresis

unit and the electrophoresis solution added. A balanced design should be used. The

electrophoresis solution should be poured until the surfaces of the slides are completely

covered with the solution. The slides should be left to unwind for 20 minutes. The slides

should be subjected to electrophoresis under controlled conditions, e.g., at 0.7 V/cm during

at least 20 minutes, with a constant voltage at approximately 300 mA. The current at the

start and end of the electrophoresis period should be recorded. The temperature of the

electrophoresis solution through unwinding and electrophoresis should be maintained at a

constant temperature, usually <10oC. The temperature of the electrophoresis solution at

the start of unwinding, the start of electrophoresis, and the end of electrophoresis should be

recorded.

42. After completion of electrophoresis, the slides should be immersed in the neutralization

buffer for at least 5 minutes. All slides should be dehydrated by immersion into absolute

ethanol for at least 5 minutes if slides will not be scored soon, allowed to air dry, and then

stored until scored at room temperature. Once scored, slides should be retained and stored

under low humidity conditions (e.g., in a desiccator) for potential rescoring.

Methods of Measurement

43. Coded slides will be scored. The slides will be stained with nucleic acid specific

fluorochrome. The comets should be measured via a digital (e.g. CCD) camera linked to an

image analyzer system using a fluorescence microscope at suitable magnification, e.g.,

200X. For each sample (animal/tissue), fifty nuclei per slide should be analyzed, with 2

slides scored per sample when five animals per group are used. Approximately

10-areas/slide should be observed at 5 cells or less/field, taking care to avoid any selection

bias, overlap counting of cells, and edge areas of slides.

13

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

44. Heavily damaged cells (commonly referred to as “hedgehogs”) that exhibit a microscopic

image consisting of a small or non-existent head, and large diffuse tails, should be excluded

from data collection if the image analysis system cannot properly score them. However, the

frequency of such comets should be determined per sample, based on the visual scoring of

100 cells per sample.

45. The comet endpoints collected should be % tail DNA, tail length in microns measured from

the estimated edge of the head region closest to the anode, and, if possible for a particular

image analysis system, tail moment.

DATA AND REPORTING

Treatment of Results

46. Individual animal data should be presented in tabular form. The experimental unit is the

animal. The report should include the individual % tail DNA for each tissue from each

animal.

Evaluation and Interpretation of Results

47. Negative control values should be well controlled in each experiment, and the data

acceptance criteria to judge acceptability of each assay should be set in advance based on

historical negative control values. Recommended means of % tail DNA in negative control

groups are 1-8% in the liver and 1-20% in the stomach based on data collected in the

JaCVAM validation trial. Mean of negative control values below 1% are not recommended

because such low values often mislead interpretation of Comet assay results (45) and do

not allow for the detection of cross-linking agents.

48. There are several criteria for determining a positive result, such as a dose-related increase

in the % tail DNA or a clear increase in the % tail DNA in a single dose group compared to

the solvent/vehicle control group. Except where a limit test is performed, at least three

treated dose groups should be analysed in order to provide sufficient data for dose-response

analysis. Consideration of whether the observed values are within or outside of the

historical control range can provide guidance when evaluating the biological significance

of the response (55). While biological relevance of the results should be the primary

consideration, appropriate statistical methods may be used as an aid in evaluating the test

14

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

results (51)(52)(53)(54). Statistical tests used should consider the animal as the

experimental unit.

49. A test substance for which the results do not meet the above criteria in any tissue is

considered non-genotoxic in this assay.

50. For biological relevance of a positive result, cytotoxicity at the target tissue should also be

discussed. Histopathological information can help in the interpretation of positive result in

the Comet assay. Whilst low or moderate cytotoxicity is often seen with known genotoxins,

severe cytotoxicity (seen through histopathology) might be expected to increase % tail

DNA in the liver but might decrease it in the stomach. It is clear that any changes in % tail

DNA would require very careful interpretation if they were seen alongside severe cytotoxic

changes observed through histopathology (45, 56). Careful interpretation of increased or

decreased % tail DNA in the presence of severe cytotoxicity is therefore essential.

51. Positive results in the Comet assay indicate that the test substance induces DNA damage in

terms of DNA single strand breaks in the specific organs of the test species. Negative

results indicate that, under the test conditions, the test substance does not induce DNA

damage in terms of DNA single strand breaks in the specific organs of the test species.

Test Report

52. The test report should include the following information:

Test substance:

- identification data and CAS RN, if known;

- source, lot number if available;

- physical nature and purity;

- physicochemical properties relevant to the conduct of the study;

- stability of the test substance, if known;

Solvent/vehicle:

- justification for choice of vehicle;

- solubility and stability of the test substance in the solvent/vehicle, if known;

- preparation of dietary, drinking water or inhalation formulations;

15

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

- analytical determinations on formulations (e.g., stability, homogeneity, nominal

concentrations);

Test animals:

- species/strain used and justification for the choice;

- number, age and sex of animals;

- source, housing conditions, diet, etc.;

- individual weight of the animals at the start of the test, including body weight range,

mean and standard deviation for each group;

Test conditions:

- positive and negative (vehicle/solvent) control data;

- data from the range-finding study;

- rationale for dose level selection;

- details of test substance preparation;

- details of the administration of the test substance;

- rationale for route of administration;

- methods for sample preparation, where available, histopathological analyses, especially

for the positive chemical

- methods for verifying that the test substance reached the target tissue, or general

circulation, if negative results are obtained;

- actual dose (mg/kg body weight/day) calculated from diet/drinking water test substance

concentration (ppm) and consumption, if applicable;

- details of food and water quality;

- detailed description of treatment and sampling schedules and justifications for the

choices;

- method of euthanasia;

- procedures for isolating and preserving tissues;

- methods for single cell/nucleus suspension;

- source and lot numbers of all reagents (where applicable);

- methods for enumeration of parameters of the assay; and

- electrophoresis conditions:

Results:

- animal condition prior to and throughout the test period, including signs of toxicity;

- body and organ weights at sacrifice;

16

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

- dose-response relationship, where possible;

- for each tissue/animal, the % tail DNA and mean values;

- concurrent and historical negative control data with ranges, means and standard

deviations;

- concurrent positive control (or non-concurrent DNA positive control) data;

- statistical analyses and methods applied;

Discussion of the results

Conclusion

LITERATURE

(1) Kirkland D, Speit G. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity

tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens III. Appropriate follow-up

testing in vivo. Mutat. Res. 2008; 654:114-132.

(2) Brendler-Schwaab S, Hartmann A, Pfuhler S, Speit G., The in vivo comet assay: use and

status in genotoxicity testing., Mutagenesis. 2005;20:245-54.

(3) Burlinson B, Tice RR, Speit G, Agurell E, Brendler-Schwaab SY, Collins AR, Escobar P,

Honma M, Kumaravel TS, Nakajima M, Sasaki YF, Thybaud V, Uno Y, Vasquez M,

Hartmann A. Fourth International Workgroup on Genotoxicity Testing: result of the in

vivo comet assay workgroup. Mutat. Res. 2007; 627:31-5.

(4) Burlinson B., The in vitro and in vivo comet assays, Methods Mol Biol. 2012;817:143-63.

(5) Catherine C. Smith, Deborah J. Adkins, Elizabeth A. Martin, and Michael R. O'Donovan,

Recommendations for design of the rat comet assay, Mutagenesis (2008) 23: 233-240.

(6) Hartmann A, Agurell E, Beevers C, Brendler-Schwaab S, Burlinson B, Clay P, Collins A,

Smith A, Speit G, Thybaud V, Tice RR. Recommendation for conducting the in vivo

alkaline Comet assay. Mutagenesis 2003; 18:45-51.

17

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

(7) McKelvey-Martin VJ, Green MH, Schmezer P, Pool-Zobel BL, De Méo MP, Collins A.,

The single cell gel electrophoresis assay (comet assay): a European review., Mutat Res.

1993 ;288:47-63.

(8) Tice RR, Agurell E, Anderson D, Burlinson B, Hartmann A, Kobayashi H, Miyamae Y,

Rojas E, Ryu JC, Sasaki YF. Single cell gel/Comet assay: guidelines for in vitro and in

vivo genetic toxicology testing. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2000; 35:206-21.

(9) Vasquez MZ., Recommendations for safety testing with the in vivo comet assay., Mutat

Res. 2012;747:142-56.

(10) Rothfuss A, O'Donovan M, De Boeck M, Brault D, Czich A, Custer L, Hamada S,

Plappert-Helbig U, Hayashi M, Howe J, Kraynak AR, van der Leede B-J, Nakajima M,

Priestley C, Thybaud V, Saigo K, Sawant S, Shi J, Storer R, Struwe M, Vock E, Galloway

S. Collaborative study on fifteen compounds in the rat-liver Comet assay integrated into

2- and 4-week repeat-dose studies. Mutat Res. 2010; 702(1):40-69.

(11) Clara Johansson, Peter Møller, Lykke Forchhammer, Steffen Loft, Roger W. L. Godschalk,

Sabine A. S. Langie, Stijn Lumeij, George D. D. Jones, Rachel W. L. Kwok, Amaya

Azqueta, David H. Phillips, Osman Sozeri, Michael N. Routledge, Alexander J. Charlton,

Patrizia Riso, Marisa Porrini, Alessandra Allione, Giuseppe Matullo, Jadwiga Palus,

Maciej Stepnik, Andrew R. Collins, and Lennart Möller, An ECVAG trial on assessment

of oxidative damage to DNA measured by the comet assay, Mutagenesis (2010) 25:

125-132

(12) Olive PL, Banath JP, Durand RE. Heterogeneity in radiation-induced DNA damage and

repair in tumor and normal cell using the “comet” assay. Radiat. Res. 1990; 122: 86-94.

(13) Tice RR, Strauss GH., The single cell gel electrophoresis/comet assay: a potential tool for

detecting radiation-induced DNA damage in humans., Stem Cells. 1995;13 Suppl

1:207-14.

(14) Collins AR., The comet assay for DNA damage and repair: principles, applications, and

limitations., Mol Biotechnol. 2004;26:249-61.

(15) Møller P., The alkaline comet assay: towards validation in biomonitoring of DNA

18

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

damaging exposures., Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2006;98:336-45

(16) Hartmann A, Agurell E, Beevers C, Brendler-Schwaab S, Burlinson B, Clay P, Collins A,

Smith A, Speit G, Thybaud V, Tice RR, Recommendations for conducting the in vivo

alkaline Comet assay. 4th International Comet Assay Workshop., Mutagenesis.

2003;18:45-51.

(17) Fairbairn DW, Olive PL, O'Neill KL., The comet assay: a comprehensive review., Mutat

Res. 1995;339:37-59.

(18) Klaude M, Eriksson S, Nygren J, Ahnström G., The comet assay: mechanisms and

technical considerations., Mutat Res. 1996;363:89-96.

(19) Olive PL., The role of DNA single- and double-strand breaks in cell killing by ionizing

radiation., Radiat Res. 1998;150(5 Suppl):S42-51.

(20) Speit G, Vasquez M, Hartmann A., The comet assay as an indicator test for germ cell

genotoxicity., Mutat Res. 2009;681:3-12.

(21) Wojewódzka M, Buraczewska I, Kruszewski M., A modified neutral comet assay:

elimination of lysis at high temperature and validation of the assay with

anti-single-stranded DNA antibody., Mutat Res. 2002;518:9-20.

(22) Pfuhler S, Albertini S, Fautz R, Herbold B, Madle S, Utesch D, Poth A; Genetic toxicity

assessment: employing the best science for human safety evaluation part IV:

Recommendation of a working group of the Gesellschaft fuer

Umwelt-Mutationsforschung (GUM) for a simple and straightforward approach to

genotoxicity testing., Toxicol Sci. 2007;97:237-40.

(23) Rothfuss A, Honma M, Czich A, Aardema MJ, Burlinson B, Galloway S, Hamada S,

Kirkland D, Heflich RH, Howe J, Nakajima M, O'Donovan M, Plappert-Helbig U,

Priestley C, Recio L, Schuler M, Uno Y, Martus HJ. Improvement of in vivo

genotoxicity assessment: combination of acute tests and integration into standard toxicity

testing. Mutat Res. 2011; 723(2):108-20.

(24) ICH S2(R1)

19

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

(25) S. Kushwaha, D.N. Tripathi, A. Vikram, P. Ramarao, G.B. Jena, Evaluation of

multi-organ DNA damage by comet assay from 28 days repeated dose oral toxicity test in

mice: A practical approach for test integration in regulatory toxicity testing, Regulatory

Toxicology and Pharmacology 58 (2010) 145–154

(26) Recio L, Hobbs C, Caspary W, Witt KL., Dose-response assessment of four genotoxic

chemicals in a combined mouse and rat micronucleus (MN) and Comet assay protocol., J

Toxicol Sci. 2010;35:149-62.

(27) Rothfuss A, et al., 2012

(28) Vasquez MZ., Combining the in vivo comet and micronucleus assays: a practical

approach to genotoxicity testing and data interpretation., Mutagenesis. 2010;25:187-99.

(29) Sasaki YF, Sekihashi K, Izumiyama F, Nishidate E, Saga A, Ishida K, Tsuda S. The comet

assay with multiple mouse organs: comparison of comet assay results and carcinogenicity

with 208 chemicals selected from the IARC monographs and U.S. NTP Carcinogenicity

Database. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2000; 30:629-799.

(30) Sekihashi K, Yamamoto A, Matsumura Y, Ueno S, Watanabe-Akanuma M, Kassie F,

Knasmüller S, Tsuda S, Sasaki YF. Comparative investigations of multiple organs of mice

and rats in the comet assay. Mutat. Res. 2002; 517:53-74.

(31) Nesslany F, Zennouche N, Simar-Meintières S, Talahari I, NKili-Mboui EN, Marzin D. In

vivo Comet assay on isolated kidney cells to distinguish genotoxic carcinogens from

epigenetic carcinogens or cytotoxic compounds. Mutat. Res. 2007; 630:28-41.

(32) Brendler-Schwaab SY, Herbold BA., A new method for the enrichment of single renal

proximal tubular cells and their first use in the comet assay., Mutat Res. 1997;393:175-8.

(33) Naya M, Kobayashi N, Endoh S, Maru J, Honda K, Ema M, Tanaka J, Fukumuro M,

Hasegawa K, Nakajima M, Hayashi M, Nakanishi J., In vivo genotoxicity study of

single-wall carbon nanotubes using comet assay following intratracheal instillation in

rats., Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2012;64:124-129.

20

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

(34) Toyoizumi T, Ohta R, Nakagawa Y, Tazura Y, Kuwagata M, Noguchi S, Yamakage K.,

Use of the in vivo skin comet assay to evaluate the DNA-damaging potential of chemicals

applied to the skin., Mutat Res. 2011;726:175-80.

(35) Wada K, Ohnuma A, Kojima S, Yoshida T, Matsumoto K., A comparison of

cell-collecting methods for the Comet assay in urinary bladders of rats., Mutat Res.

2012;742:26-30.

(36) Wang A, Robertson JL, Holladay SD, Tennant AH, Lengi AJ, Ahmed SA, Huckle WR,

Kligerman AD., Measurement of DNA damage in rat urinary bladder transitional cells:

improved selective harvest of transitional cells and detailed Comet assay protocols.,

Mutat Res. 2007;634:51-9.

(37) Baumgartner A, Cemeli E, Anderson D., The comet assay in male reproductive toxicology.

Cell Biol Toxicol. 2009;25:81-98.

(38) Villani P, Spanò M, Pacchierotti F, Weimer M, Cordelli E., Evaluation of a modified

comet assay to detect DNA damage in mammalian sperm exposed in vitro to different

mutagenic compounds., Reprod Toxicol. 2010;30:44-9.

(39) Tice RR, Agurell E, Anderson D, Burlinson B, Hartmann A, Kobayashi H, Miyamae Y,

Rojas E, Ryu JC, Sasaki YF. Single cell gel/Comet assay: guidelines for in vitro and in

vivo genetic toxicology testing. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2000; 35:206-221.

(40) Nakajima M, Ueda M, Yamakage K, Nakagawa Y, Nakagawa M, Ohyama W, Omori T,

Asano N, Hayashi M, Uno Y. Tissue sample preparation for in vivo rodent alkaline comet

assay. Genes Environ. 2012; 34:50-4.

(41) Ersson C, Möller L., The effects on DNA migration of altering parameters in the comet

assay protocol such as agarose density, electrophoresis conditions and durations of the

enzyme or the alkaline treatments., Mutagenesis. 2011;26):689-95.

(42) Peter Møller, Lennart Möller, Roger W. L. Godschalk, and George D. D. Jones,

Assessment and reduction of comet assay variation in relation to DNA damage: studies

from the European Comet Assay Validation Group, Mutagenesis (2010) 25: 109-111.

21

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

(43) Lykke Forchhammer, Clara Johansson, Steffen Loft, Lennart Möller, Roger W. L.

Godschalk, Sabine A. S. Langie, George D. D. Jones, Rachel W. L. Kwok, Andrew R.

Collins, Amaya Azqueta, David H. Phillips, Osman Sozeri, Maciej Stępnik, Jadwiga

Palus, Ulla Vogel, Håkan Wallin, Michael N. Routledge, Catherine Handforth, Alessandra

Allione, Giuseppe Matullo, João Paulo Teixeira, Solange Costa, Patrizia Riso, Marisa

Porrini, and Peter Møller, Variation in the measurement of DNA damage by comet assay

measured by the ECVAG† inter-laboratory validation trial, Mutagenesis (2010) 25:

113-123.

(44) Wiklund SJ, E Agurell., Aspects of design and statistical analysis in the Comet assay.

Mutagenesis 18(2):167-175, 2003.

(45) JaCVAM

(46) OECD TG488

(47) OECD TG474

(48) Comet Atlas

(49) Rothfuss A, O'Donovan M, De Boeck M, Brault D, Czich A, Custer L, Hamada S,

Plappert-Helbig U, Hayashi M, Howe J, Kraynak AR, van der Leede BJ, Nakajima M,

Priestley C, Thybaud V, Saigo K, Sawant S, Shi J, Storer R, Struwe M, Vock E, Galloway

S., Collaborative study on fifteen compounds in the rat-liver Comet assay integrated into

2- and 4-week repeat-dose studies., Mutat Res. 2010;702:40-69.

(50) Olive PL, et al., Heterogeneity in radiation-induced DNA damage and repair in tumor and

normal cell using the “comet” assay. Radiat. Res., 122, 86-94, 1990.

(51) Lovell DP, G Thomas G, R Dubow., Issues related to the experimental design and

subsequent statistical analysis of in vivo and in vitro comet studies. Teratog Carcinog

Mutagen. 19(2), 109-119, 1999.

(52) Wiklund SJ, E Agurell., Aspects of design and statistical analysis in the Comet assay.

Mutagenesis 18:167-175, 2003.

22

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

(53) Bright J, Aylott M, Bate S, Geys H, Jarvis P, Saul J, Vonk R., Recommendations on the

statistical analysis of the Comet assay., Pharm Stat. 2011;10:485-93.

(54) David P. Lovell and Takashi Omori, Statistical issues in the use of the comet assay,

Mutagenesis (2008) 23: 171-182

(55) Hayashi M, Dearfield K, Kasper P, Lovell D, Martus HJ, Thybaud V. Compilation and

use of genetic toxicity historical control data. Mutat. Res. 2011; 723(2):87-90.

(56) Burlinson B, Tice RR, Speit G, Agurell E, Brendler-Schwaab SY, Collins AR, Escobar P,

Honma M, Kumaravel TS, Nakajima M, Sasaki YF, Thybaud V, Uno Y, Vasquez M,

Hartmann A. Fourth International Workgroup on Genotoxicity Testing: result of the in

vivo comet assay workgroup. Mutat. Res. 2007; 627:31-5.

(57) EFSA Scientific opinion on genotoxicity testing strategies applicable to food and feed

safety assessment, EFSA Journal 9 (2011) 2379; www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal

(58) UK COM guidelines – www.iacom.org.uk/guidstate/index.htm

Additional list:

Burlinson B, Tice RR, Speit G, Agurell E, Brendler-Schwaab SY, Collins AR, Escobar P, Honma

M, Kumaravel TS, Nakajima M, Sasaki YF, Thybaud V, Uno Y, Vasquez M, Hartmann A,

Fourth International Workgroup on Genotoxicity testing: results of the in vivo Comet

assay workgroup., Mutat Res. 2007;627:31-5.

Andreas Hartmann, Martin Schumacher, Ulla Plappert‐Helbig, Phil Lowe, Willi Suter, and

Lutz Mueller, Use of the alkaline in vivo Comet assay for mechanistic genotoxicity

investigations, Mutagenesis (2004) 19: 51-59

Kirkland D, Speit G. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to

discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens III. Appropriate follow-up testing in

vivo. Mutat. Res. 2008; 654:114-132.

Lovell DP, G Thomas G, R Dubow., Issues related to the experimental design and subsequent

23

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

statistical analysis of in vivo and in vitro comet studies. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen. 19,

109-119, 1999.

Merk O, Speit G., Detection of crosslinks with the comet assay in relationship to genotoxicity

and cytotoxicity., Environ Mol Mutagen. 1999;33:167-72.

Nakajima M, Ueda M, Yamakage K, Nakagawa Y, Nakagawa M, Ohyama W, Omori T, Asano N,

Hayashi M, Uno Y. Tissue sample preparation for in vivo rodent alkaline comet assay.

Genes Environ. 2012; 34:50-4.

Nesslany F, Zennouche N, Simar-Meintières S, Talahari I, NKili-Mboui EN, Marzin D. In vivo

Comet assay on isolated kidney cells to distinguish genotoxic carcinogens from

epigenetic carcinogens or cytotoxic compounds. Mutat. Res. 2007; 630:28-41.

Sasaki YF, Sekihashi K, Izumiyama F, Nishidate E, Saga A, Ishida K, Tsuda S., The comet assay

with multiple mouse organs: comparison of comet assay results and carcinogenicity with

208 chemicals selected from the IARC monographs and U.S. NTP Carcinogenicity

Database., Crit Rev Toxicol. 2000;30:629-799.

Sekihashi, K., A. Yamamoto, Y. Matsumura, S. Ueno, M. Watanabe-Akanuma, F. Kassie, S.

Knasmuller, S. Tsuda, Y.F. Sasaki, Comparative investigation of multiple organs of mice

and rats in the comet assay, Mutat Res., 517, 53-74, 2002.

24

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

Annex 1 DEFINITIONS

Alkaline single cell gel electrophoresis:

Comet:

Predictivity:

UDS:

% tail DNA

Annex 2 Solutions

The following are examples which were used in JaCVAM trials. Other preparation methods

are acceptable if justified.

1) Agarose

1.0-1.5% (w/v) standard agarose gel for the bottom layer (if used) Regular melting

agarose will be dissolved at 1.0-1.5% (w/v) in Dulbecco’s phosphate buffer (Ca++

,

Mg++

free and phenol free) by heating in a microwave.

0.5 % (w/v) low-melting agarose (Lonza, NuSieve GTG Agarose) gel for the

cell-containing layer and, if used, a top layer Low-melting agarose will be dissolved at

0.5% (w/v) in Dulbecco’s phosphate buffer (Ca++

, Mg++

free and phenol free) by

heating in a microwave. During the study this solution will be kept at 37-45°C and

discarded afterward.

2) Lysing solution

The lysing solution will consist of 100 mM EDTA (disodium), 2.5 M sodium chloride,

and 10 mM tris hydroxymethyl aminomethane in purified water, with the pH adjusted

to 10.0 with 1 M sodium hydroxide and/or hydrochloric acid. This solution may be

refrigerated at <10C until use. On the same day of use, 1 % (v/v) of triton-X100 and

10 % (v/v) DMSO will be added to this solution and the complete lysing solution will

be refrigerated at <10C for at least 30 minutes prior to use.

3) Alkaline solution for unwinding and electrophoresis

The alkaline solution consists of 300 mM sodium hydroxide and 1 mM EDTA

(disodium) in purified water, pH >13. This solution will be refrigerated at <10C until

use. The pH of the solution will be measured just prior to use.

4) Neutralization solution

25

7/11/2012 7:38 PM

The neutralization solution consists of 0.4 M tris hydroxymethyl aminomethane in

purified water, pH 7.5. This solution will be either refrigerated at <10C or stored

consistent with manufacturer’s specifications until use.

5) Mincing buffer

The mincing buffer consists of 20 mM EDTA (disodium) and 10% DMSO in Hank’s

Balanced Salt Solution (HBSS) (Ca++

, Mg++

free, and phenol red free if available), pH

7.5 (DMSO will be added immediately before use). This solution will be refrigerated

at <10C until use.

6) Staining solution

The fluorescent DNA stain is SYBR Gold (Invitrogen-Molecular Probes),

prepared and used according to the manufacturer’s specifications.