Radiation and Environmental Biophysics

, Volume 57, Issue 2, pp 115–121 | Cite as

The level of DNA damage in mouse hematopoietic cells and in frog and human blood cells, as induced by the action of reactive oxygen species in vitro

  • Nikolay SirotaEmail author
  • Elena Kuznetsova
  • Irina Mitroshina
Original Article


Comparative studies of the level of DNA damage induced in vitro by X-rays (0–8 Gy) or hydrogen peroxide (0–300 µM) in cells of blood, spleen, and bone marrow of mice and in blood cells of frogs and humans were performed using the alkaline comet assay. For both agents, the levels of induced DNA damage in leucocytes/splenocytes of mice were higher than those in blood cells of frogs and humans, while in human leucocytes, they were comparable with those in frog blood cells. The rate of DNA repair in frog blood cells was very slow. The results suggest that the levels of radiation-induced DNA damage are not in accordance with species radiosensitivity (according to LD50/30) but rather with the intrinsic peculiarities of cells.


Comet assay DNA damage X-ray Hydrogen peroxide 



We are grateful to V.K. Uteshev (Institute of Cell Biophysics RAS, Pushchino of Moscow Region) for granting blood samples of Rana temporaria.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human and animal participants

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.


  1. Adelman R, Saul RL, Ames BN (1988) Oxidative damage to DNA: relation to species metabolic rate and life span. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85:2706–2708ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bond VP, Fliedner TM, Archambeau JO (1965) Mammalian radiation lethality. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Brammer I, Zoller M, Dikomey E (2001) Relationship between cellular radiosensitivity and DNA damage measured by comet assay in human normal, NBS and AT fibroblasts. Int J Radiat Biol 77:929–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chemeris NK, Gapeyev AB, Sirota NP et al (2004) The in vitro assessment of potential genotoxicity of high power microwave pulses. Mutat Res 558:27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen MM Jr (2001) Frog decline, frog malformations, and a comparison of frog and human health. Am J Med Genet 104:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins AR, Oscoz AA, Brunborg G et al (2008) The comet assay: topical issues. Mutagenesis 23:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giovannelli L, Pitozzi V, Riolo S, Dolara P (2003) Measurement of DNA breaks and oxidative damage in polymorphonuclear and mononuclear white blood cells: a novel approach using the comet assay. Mutat Res 538:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gűerci A, Zúñiga L, Marcos R (2011) Construction and validation of a dose-response curve using the comet assay to determine human radiosensitivity to ionizing radiation. J Toxicol Env Heal A 74:1087–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hellman B, Brodin D, Andersson M et al (2005) Radiation-induced DNA-damage and gene expression profiles in human lung cancer cells with different radiosensitivity. Exp Oncol 27:102–107Google Scholar
  10. Karran P, Ormerod MG (1973) Is the ability to repair damage to DNA related to the proliferative capacity of a cell? The rejoining of X-ray-produced strand breaks. Biochim Biophys Acta 299:54–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kondratieva I (2001) Experimental models: methods for animal treatment. In: Kondratieva I, Samuilov V (eds) Manual in immunology, MSU, Moscow, pp 8–41 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  12. Kulinsky VI, Kolesnichenko LS (1990) Glutathione turnover. Uspekhi Biologicheskoi Khimii 31:157–179 (Russian)Google Scholar
  13. Lankinen MH, Vilpo LM, Vilpo JA (1996) UV- and gamma-irradiation-induced DNA single-strand breaks and their repair in human blood granulocytes and lymphocytes. Mutat Res 352:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lenton KJ, Therriault H, Cantin AM et al (2000) Direct correlation of glutathione and ascorbate and their dependence on age and season in human lymphocytes. Am J Clin Nutr 71:1194–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lovell DP, Omori T (2008) Statistical issues in the use of the comet assay. Mutagenesis 23:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Matsuba C, Merila J (2006) Genome size variation in the common frog. Rana Temporaria Hereditas 143:155–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Muller WU, Bauch T, Streffer C et al (1994) Comet assay studies of radiation-induced DNA damage and repair in various tumour cell lines. Int J Radiat Biol 65:315–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Munday R, Winterboume CC (1989) Reduced glutathione in combination with superoxide dismutase as an impotant biological antioxidant defense mechanism. Biochem Pharmacol 38:4349–4352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oppitz U, Schulte S, Stopper H et al (2002) In vitro radiosensitivity measured in lymphocytes and fibroblasts by colony formation and comet assay: comparison with clinical acute reactions to radiotherapy in breast cancer patients. Int J Radiat Biol 78:611–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Purschke M, Kasten-Pisula U, Brammer I, Dikomey E (2004) Human and rodent cell lines showing no differences in the induction but differing in the repair kinetics of radiation-induced DNA base damage. Int J Radiat Biol 80:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sigurdson AJ, Hauptmann M, Alexander BH et al (2005) DNA damage among thyroid cancer cases, controls, and long-lived individuals. Mutat Res 586:173–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sparrow AH, Underbrink AG, Sparrow RC (1967) Cromosomes and cellular radiosensitivity. I. The relationship of D0 to chromosome volume and complexity in seventy-nine different organisms. Radiat Res 32:915–945ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Suvorova LA, Nugis VYu (2012) Dynamics of leucocytes and leucogram after a single human exposure to doses below 1 Gy. Medical Radiol Radiat Saf (Meditsinskaia Radiologiia Radiatsionnaia Bezopasnost) 57:30–38 (Russian)Google Scholar
  24. Taylor CG, Potter AJ, Rabinovitch PS (1997) Splenocyte glutathione and CD3-mediated cell proliferation are reduced in mice fed a protein-deficient diet. J Nutr 127:44–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. UNSCEAR 2013 Report Vol. I (2014) Sources, Effects and risks of ionizing radiation. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Valverde M, Rojas E (2009) Environmental and occupational biomonitoring using the comet assay. Mutat Res 681:93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zaichkina SI, Rozanova OM, Aptikaeva GF et al. (2007) Peculiarities of the effect of low-dose-rate radiation simulating high-altitude flight conditions on mice in vivo. Radiat Environ Biophys 46:131–135. (in Russian)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikolay Sirota
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elena Kuznetsova
    • 1
  • Irina Mitroshina
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Biophysics of the Russian Academy of SciencesPushchinoRussia

Personalised recommendations