Facts and artifacts in the measurement of oxidative base damage to DNA

• Published in: Free radical research Vol. 29; no. 6; p. 541
• Main Authors: Cadet, J, D'Ham, C, Douki, T, Pouget, J P, Ravanat, J L, Sauvaigo, S
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01-01-1998
• Subjects: Animals; Base Pairing - physiology; Biochemistry - methods; Chromatography - methods; Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid - methods; Deoxyguanosine - analogs & derivatives; Deoxyguanosine - analysis; DNA Damage; DNA Repair; Endonucleases - chemistry; Endonucleases - metabolism; Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry - methods; Humans; Isotope Labeling - methods; Oxidation-Reduction; Oxidative Stress; Phosphorus Radioisotopes
• ISSN: 1071-5762
• DOI: 10.1080/10715769800300581

This short survey is aimed at critically evaluating the main available methods for measuring oxidative base damage within cellular DNA. Emphasis is placed on separative methods which are currently widely applied. These mostly concern high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and gas chromatography (GC) associated with sensitive detection techniques such as electrochemistry (EC) and mass spectrometry (MS). In addition, the comparison is extended to 32p-postlabeling methods, immunoassays and measurement of two main classes of oxidative DNA damage within isolated cells. It may be concluded that the HPLC-electrochemical detection (ECD) method, even if restricted to the measurement of only a few electroactive oxidized bases and nucleosides, is the simplest and safest available method at the moment. In contrast, the more versatile GC-MS method, which requires a HPLC pre-purification step in order to prevent artifactual oxidation of overwhelming normal bases to occur during derivatization, is more tedious and its sensitivity may be questionable. Alternative simpler procedures of background prevention for the GC-MS assay, which, however, remain to be validated, include low-temperature for derivatization and addition of antioxidants to the silylating reagents. Interestingly, similar levels of 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine were found in cellular DNA using HPLC-ECD, HPLC-MS/MS and HPLC/32P-postlabeling methods. However, it should be noted that the level of cellular 8-oxodGuo, thus determined, is on average basis 10-fold higher than that was inferred for more indirect measurement involving the use of DNA repair enzymes with methods on isolated cells. Further efforts should be made to resolve this apparent discrepancy. In addition, the question of the biological validation of the non-invasive measurement of oxidized bases and nucleosides in urine is addressed.