Title |
High throughput sample processing and automated scoring
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Genetics, October 2014
|
DOI | 10.3389/fgene.2014.00373 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Gunnar Brunborg, Petra Jackson, Sergey Shaposhnikov, Hildegunn Dahl, Amaya Azqueta, Andrew R. Collins, Kristine B. Gutzkow |
Abstract |
The comet assay is a sensitive and versatile method for assessing DNA damage in cells. In the traditional version of the assay, there are many manual steps involved and few samples can be treated in one experiment. High throughput (HT) modifications have been developed during recent years, and they are reviewed and discussed. These modifications include accelerated scoring of comets; other important elements that have been studied and adapted to HT are cultivation and manipulation of cells or tissues before and after exposure, and freezing of treated samples until comet analysis and scoring. HT methods save time and money but they are useful also for other reasons: large-scale experiments may be performed which are otherwise not practicable (e.g., analysis of many organs from exposed animals, and human biomonitoring studies), and automation gives more uniform sample treatment and less dependence on operator performance. The HT modifications now available vary largely in their versatility, capacity, complexity, and costs. The bottleneck for further increase of throughput appears to be the scoring. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 7 | 20% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
Professor | 3 | 9% |
Other | 7 | 20% |
Unknown | 5 | 14% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 17% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 14% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 14% |
Engineering | 3 | 9% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 6% |
Other | 5 | 14% |
Unknown | 9 | 26% |