A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.

Method Article

Detection of DNA Breaks in Dividing Human Cells by Neutral Comet Assay

1.6K views

⸱

DOI:

10.3791/67110

⸱

August 23rd, 2024

 , 
1Department of Molecular Biosciences, University of South Florida, Tampa

In This Article

Summary

This protocol is designed to investigate the extent of DNA damage occurring during DNA replication. Under neutral conditions, the induction of DNA breaks can be readily assessed within a short time frame. Additionally, the protocol is adaptable to other cell types and various replication stress reagents.

Abstract

DNA replication is constantly challenged by a wide variety of endogenous and exogenous stressors that can damage DNA. Such lesions encountered during genome duplication can stall replisomes and convert replication forks into double-strand breaks. If left unrepaired, these toxic DNA breaks can trigger chromosomal rearrangements, leading to heightened genome instability and an increased likelihood of cellular transformation. Additionally, cancer cells exhibit persistent replication stress, making the targeting of replication fork vulnerabilities in tumor cells an attractive strategy for chemotherapy. A highly versatile and powerful technique to study DNA breaks during replication is the comet assay. This gel electrophoresis technique reliably detects the induction and repair of DNA breaks at the single-cell level. Herein, a protocol is outlined that allows investigators to measure the extent of DNA damage in mitotically dividing human cells using fork-stalling agents across multiple cell types. Coupling this with automated comet scoring facilitates rapid analysis and enhances the reliability in studying induction of DNA breaks.

Introduction

The comet assay is a gel electrophoresis method used to detect DNA breaks at the single-cell level. It relies on the principle that open-ended DNA breaks migrate under electrophoretic conditions, while intact DNA remains largely static. Broken DNA migrates because breaks result in the relaxation of supercoiled DNA, causing its gradual spatial relocation towards the anode in the electrophoretic chamber, which results in a comet-like appearance observed by immunofluorescence1,2. The extent of DNA damage is then measured by quantifying the amount of broken DNA that has migrated relative to the compact DNA.

The two most commonly used comet assay methods are the alkaline comet (AC) assay and the neutral comet (NC) assay. The AC assay is performed under denaturing conditions using a high alkaline pH solution, while the NC assay is carried out in a solution with neutral pH. Both NC and AC assays can reliably detect DNA breaks that occur in the nucleus. However, the alkaline version is also advantageous for detecting alkali-labile sites3. Both formats of the assay require the use of lysis conditions to ensure that DNA is free of proteins prior to electrophoresis.

This assay is a simple method for detecting DNA breaks and offers several unique advantages for determining cellular DNA damage. The method is relatively easy to set up and requires reagents that can either be prepared in the laboratory or purchased from commercial vendors. As a single-cell resolution technique, the assay requires very little starting material. Notably, the NC assay can measure breaks with high sensitivity, reported to detect between 50 and 10,000 breaks per cell4. The versatility of this technique is demonstrated by its wide range of applications, including ecotoxicology5, human biomonitoring6, and genotoxicity studies7. The assay can also be reliably used across various cell types and adapted for high-throughput assays8 and for assessing breaks at specific genomic regions9. Thus, this assay serves as a rapid and reliable technique for investigating break formation at the single-cell level.

The process of DNA replication is constantly challenged by several endogenous and exogenous stressors10,11. Stalling of replisomes due to such lesions can cause DNA breaks and result in heightened genome instability. DNA breaks also often arise as replication intermediates to facilitate DNA repair12. Additionally, several chemotherapeutic agents induce replication-dependent double-strand breaks (DSBs), such as camptothecin (CPT)13,14,15and PARP inhibitors16,17. Thus, this assay serves as a powerful methodology to study the nature of DNA lesions, assess the processing of replication forks, and investigate the therapeutic potential of DNA-damaging agents. Adaptations of the assay that involve labeling newly synthesized DNA with BrdU have been useful for studying replication-associated stress phenotypes18,19,20,21. Notably, the NC assay is a reliable method for studying DNA break induction in the context of replication, as demonstrated in studies involving the characterization of fork proteins22,23, analysis of replication intermediates24,25, and investigation of transcription-replication conflicts in genome maintenance26,27. Herein, we outline a NC assay protocol with the goal of quantifying DNA breaks during replication in human cells. This protocol can be readily implemented by researchers interested in assessing replication stress-associated damage in a wide variety of dividing human cells.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Protocol

This protocol (Figure 1) primarily utilizes adherent U2OS cancer cell lines but is adaptable to a wide variety of adherent and suspension cells grown in tissue culture. The solutions and buffers used in this study are detailed in Table 1. The reagents and equipment used are listed in the Table of Materials.

1. Preparation of materials

  1. Prior to the day of the experiment, place the provided bottle with low melting agarose (1% low melting agarose in PBS) in a hot water bath for 5-10 min to ensure the agarose has completely melted.
    NOTE: Do not heat the bottle in the microwave.
  2. Once melted, quickly aliquot 100 µL of the agarose to 1.5 mL centrifuge tubes as required and store the tubes at 4 °C. The solidified agarose can be stored at 4 °C for up to 1 year.
  3. On the day of the experiment, remove the required number of centrifuge tubes from the 4 °C storage. Melt the agarose by placing the tubes in a heat block or water bath at 42 °C.
    NOTE: Place the tubes at 42 °C prior to harvesting the cells to ensure the agarose is completely melted for resuspension (step 3.7).
  4. Prepare fresh lysis buffer and TAE buffer on the day of the experiment and store them at room temperature and 4 °C, respectively, until ready to use. In addition, aliquot 1x PBS in 15 mL conical tube and place it in the fridge to use in the resuspension step (step 3.5).
  5. Mark the sample identifications on the frosted end of the 2-well comet slides and store them at room temperature until ready to use.

2. Preparation of samples

  1. Prior to the day of the experiment, seed the cells in a 6-well dish and culture overnight at 37 °C with 5% CO2. For U2OS cells, approximately 2-3 x 105 cells were seeded for each sample.
    NOTE: Cell numbers might need to be adjusted depending on the cell type used for analyses.
  2. On the day of the experiment, treat cells with the conditions as per the experimental design. As a positive control to demonstrate replication-dependent break induction, treat cells with 1 µM CPT for 1 h. CPT is a topoisomerase-1 inhibitor that induces double-strand breaks in a replication-dependent manner14.

3. Cell resuspension and lysis

  1. Aspirate cell culture media and rinse twice with 1x PBS.
  2. Add 300 µL of trypsin to each well. Incubate the dish in a tissue culture incubator for 2-3 min.
    NOTE: Prolonged incubation in trypsin can generate spurious results during comet analyses.
  3. Add 700 µL of cell culture media to each well. Resuspend gently and transfer the samples to 1.5 mL centrifuge tubes.
    NOTE: Counting cells at this step is recommended to obtain the appropriate cell density in step 3.6 to reduce the frequency of overlapping tails during analysis.
  4. Centrifuge the cell suspension at 2400 x g for 5 min at room temperature.
  5. Aspirate the media and resuspend the cells in 1 mL of cold 1x PBS.
  6. Repeat step 3.4 and step 3.5 twice and resuspend the cells in cold 1x PBS at a cell density of 2 x 105 cells per ml.
    NOTE: Assessing cell viability at this step is recommended to ensure an adequate number of viable cells are present. At least 90% viability is recommended.
  7. Resuspend 10 µL of the cell suspension in 100 µL aliquot of melted agarose, and using the same pipette tip, mix gently and spread the mixture evenly into one well of the slide. Repeat this step for all samples as needed.
    NOTE: Avoid removing all aliquots from 42 °C water bath at once to prevent the agarose from solidifying. This step should preferably be performed by the water bath, and each sample is resuspended and spread in a staggered manner. Avoid introducing bubbles while spreading the agarose on the slide since the air pockets will affect the migration of the comet tails during electrophoresis (step 4.5) and introduce cracks in the drying step (step 5.3)
  8. Store the slides at 4 °C in the dark for 15-20 min to ensure the agarose has completely solidified (Figure 2A).
  9. Place the slides in Coplin jars and immerse the slides in lysis buffer for 1 h at room temperature.
  10. Rinse the slides once with cold TAE buffer and immerse the slides in cold TAE buffer for 30 min at 4 °C.

4. Electrophoresis

  1. Setup the electrophoretic chamber on a flat surface and level the system using the four leveling knobs on the edges of the apparatus. Insert cold packs in the bottom chamber to keep the solution cold during electrophoresis.
  2. Pour approximately ~850 mL of cold 1x TAE buffer into the apparatus.
  3. Remove the slides from 4 °C and place them on the electrophoresis tray in the proper orientation to allow for the migration of broken DNA.
    NOTE: The tray holds ten 2-well slides. Place the slides in the center of the tray if working with less number of samples. If working with an odd number of slides, include a blank slide such that each well accommodates 2 slides.
  4. Gently place the provided slide tray overlay on top of the tray to cover the slides.
    NOTE: For proper operation of the apparatus, the volume of the TAE buffer should not be lower than the bottom surface of the overlay and not exceed the top surface of the overlay.
  5. After connecting the cables, set the power at 21 V and perform electrophoresis (1 V/cm) for 40 min.
    NOTE: The electrophoresis time may need to be adjusted depending on the cell type used for analyses. Long tails in untreated samples indicate excessive runtime. Conversely, short tails in positive control samples may reflect insufficient runtime.

5. Staining

  1. After completion of electrophoresis, remove the slides from the apparatus and immerse them in DNA precipitation solution for 30 min at room temperature.
  2. Discard the DNA precipitation solution and immerse the slides in 70% ethanol solution for 30 minu at room temperature.
  3. Discard the 70% ethanol solution. Remove the slides and dry them in a hybridization oven at 45 °C for 30 min in the dark (Figure 2B).
    NOTE: Slides can be left in a dark, dry place overnight for the drying step.
  4. Incubate the wells with 100 µL of 1x SYBR Green solution for 30 min at room temperature in the dark.
  5. Decant the SYBR Green solution by tilting the slides and removing the excess by gently dabbing the edge of the well with a lint-free wipe.
  6. Place the slides in a drawer and allow to dry for 30 min.
  7. Proceed with imaging of the slides.

6. Imaging and analyses

  1. Setup the microscope for imaging purposes.
    NOTE: All images were acquired using a epifluorescence microscope. 10x magnification with 0.45 numerical aperture was used with an exposure time of 1/40s and a gain of +6dB. The capturing mode of monochrome 8bit was utilized with 2 x 2 binning and black balance correction.
  2. Place the slides on the microscope stage and begin imaging using the FITC filter.
    NOTE: Use the untreated sample first to test exposure time. Most cells do not exhibit comet tails since DNA is more compact. Switch to the well with CPT-treated cells and image using the same exposure time. Comet tails with increased lengths will be observed in this sample due to the migration of broken DNA ends.
  3. Acquire images for at least 100 comets per sample using the same exposure time across three technical replicates.
    NOTE: Comet tails at the end of coverslips tend to migrate unevenly and act as outliers in the sample distribution. Most of the comets captured for analyses are present close to the center of the coverslip (Figure 3).
  4. Export images and score the comets either manually (using Image J) or by using freely available comet scoring software. Comets that are individually distinguishable and fully contained in the field of view are selected for scoring. Overlapping or partially visible comets are not considered for further analyses (Figure 4).
    NOTE: Users can score comets on Image J using the following plugin: https://cometbio.org/index.html. Details for scoring comets using CometScore software are included in Figure 5.
  5. Plot tail moments acquired from the analyses as box and whisker plots depicting 10-90 percentile values. Perform normality tests to determine whether parametric, or non-parametric tests should be utilized for statistical analyses.
    NOTE: In most cases, non-parametric tests are applied using the Mann-Whitney test if comparing two samples only or the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's multiple comparisons if comparing three or more samples.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Results

Analysis of break induction by replication stress reagents
U2OS cells were treated with DMSO, 4 of mM hydroxyurea (HU), or 100 nM of CPT for 4 h and analyzed for break accumulation by the NC assay (Figure 6A). While CPT induces breaks during S-phase by blocking topoisomerase-113, HU-induced depletion of nucleotide pools stalls replication forks that are progressively converted into DSBs28. The data indicates that exposure t...

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Discussion

This protocol outlines a NC assay for assessing DNA breaks in human cells undergoing active replication. The protocol is relatively simple to perform, and researchers can readily adapt it to high pH conditions for alkaline analyses8. It includes two critical steps, as described in steps 3.7 and 4.5. In step 3.7, it is essential to spread the melted agarose with cells uniformly across the well to prevent comets from overlapping during analysis. Ensure that cellular aggregates are dissolved before r...

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Disclosures

The authors declare no competing interests.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Dungrawala lab members for their input and feedback. This work was funded by NIH grant R35GM137800 to HD.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Materials

List of materials used in this article
NameCompanyCatalog NumberComments
1x DPBSGibco14190144
CamptothecinSelleckchemS1288
Comet LMAgarose (LMA)R&D systems4250-050-02
CometAssay Electrophoresis System IIR&D systems4250-050-ESIncludes electrophoresis tank, safety lid, cables, 2/20 wells slide trays and slide tray overlay
CometScore softwareTriTekopen-sourced
CometSlideR&D systems4250-050-03
DMEM, high glucoseGibco11965092
DMEM/F12Gibco11320033
DMSO FisherSciD128-4
Epifluorescence microscopeKeyenceBZ-X810
Fetal Bovine Serum - PremiumBio-TechneS11150
Gibco Trypsin-EDTA (0.05%), phenol redGibco25300054
GraphPad Prism 10.0GraphPad
HEK293T cellsATCCCRL-11268
hTERT-RPE-1 cellsATCCCRL-4000
HydroxyureaMillipore SigmaH8627
PARP inhibitor OlaparibSelleckchemS8096
PowerPac FisherSciFB300Q
Surface Treated Sterile Tissue Culture PlateFisherSciFB012927
SYBR Green I Nucleic Acid Gel Stain (10,000x)FisherSciS7567
U2OS cellsATCCHTB-96
UVP HB-1000 Hybridization IncubatorFisherSciUVP95003001

References

  1. Olive, P. L. Cell proliferation as a requirement for development of the contact effect in Chinese hamster v79 spheroids. Radiat Res. 117 (1), 79-92 (1989).
  2. Olive, P. L., Banath, J. P., Durand, R. E. Heterogeneity in radiation-induced DNA damage and repair in tumor and normal cells measured using the "comet" assay. Radiat Res. 122 (1), 86-94 (1990).
  3. Singh, N. P., Mccoy, M. T., Tice, R. R., Schneider, E. L. A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Exp Cell Res. 175 (1), 184-191 (1988).
  4. Olive, P. L., Banath, J. P. The comet assay: A method to measure DNA damage in individual cells. Nat Protoc. 1 (1), 23-29 (2006).
  5. De Lapuente, J., et al. The comet assay and its applications in the field of ecotoxicology: A mature tool that continues to expand its perspectives. Front Genet. 6, 180(2015).
  6. Azqueta, A., et al. Application of the comet assay in human biomonitoring: An hcomet perspective. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 783, 108288(2020).
  7. Speit, G., Hartmann, A. The comet assay: A sensitive genotoxicity test for the detection of DNA damage. Methods Mol Biol. 291, 85-95 (2005).
  8. Collins, A., et al. Measuring DNA modifications with the comet assay: A compendium of protocols. Nat Protoc. 18 (3), 929-989 (2023).
  9. Rapp, A., Hausmann, M., Greulich, K. O. The comet-fish technique: A tool for detection of specific DNA damage and repair. Methods Mol Biol. 291, 107-119 (2005).
  10. Saldivar, J. C., Cortez, D., Cimprich, K. A. The essential kinase atr: Ensuring faithful duplication of a challenging genome. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 18 (10), 622-636 (2017).
  11. Cimprich, K. A., Cortez, D. Atr: An essential regulator of genome integrity. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 9 (8), 616-627 (2008).
  12. Cortez, D. Replication-coupled DNA repair. Mol Cell. 74 (5), 866-876 (2019).
  13. Strumberg, D., et al. Conversion of topoisomerase I cleavage complexes on the leading strand of ribosomal DNA into 5'-phosphorylated DNA double-strand breaks by replication runoff. Mol Cell Biol. 20 (11), 3977-3987 (2000).
  14. Pommier, Y. Topoisomerase I inhibitors: Camptothecins and beyond. Nat Rev Cancer. 6 (10), 789-802 (2006).
  15. Hsiang, Y. H., Hertzberg, R., Hecht, S., Liu, L. F. Camptothecin induces protein-linked DNA breaks via mammalian DNA topoisomerase i. J Biol Chem. 260 (27), 14873-14878 (1985).
  16. Bryant, H. E., et al. Specific killing of brca2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(adp-ribose) polymerase. Nature. 434 (7035), 913-917 (2005).
  17. Helleday, T. The underlying mechanism for the parp and BRCA synthetic lethality: Clearing up the misunderstandings. Mol Oncol. 5 (4), 387-393 (2011).
  18. Mcglynn, A. P., et al. The bromodeoxyuridine comet assay: Detection of maturation of recently replicated DNA in individual cells. Cancer Res. 59 (23), 5912-5916 (1999).
  19. Morocz, M., Gali, H., Rasko, I., Downes, C. S., Haracska, L. Single cell analysis of human rad18-dependent DNA post-replication repair by alkaline bromodeoxyuridine comet assay. PLoS One. 8 (8), e70391(2013).
  20. Thakar, T., et al. Lagging strand gap suppression connects BRCA-mediated fork protection to nucleosome assembly through PCNA-dependent CAF-1 recycling. Nat Commun. 13 (1), 5323(2022).
  21. Vaitsiankova, A., et al. Parp inhibition impedes the maturation of nascent DNA strands during DNA replication. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 29 (4), 329-338 (2022).
  22. Dungrawala, H., et al. Radx promotes genome stability and modulates chemosensitivity by regulating rad51 at replication forks. Mol Cell. 67 (3), 374-386.e5 (2017).
  23. Townsend, A., Lora, G., Engel, J., Tirado-Class, N., Dungrawala, H. Dcaf14 promotes stalled fork stability to maintain genome integrity. Cell Rep. 34 (4), 108669(2021).
  24. Lemacon, D., et al. Mre11 and exo1 nucleases degrade reversed forks and elicit mus81-dependent fork rescue in brca2-deficient cells. Nat Commun. 8 (1), 860(2017).
  25. Leung, W., et al. Atr protects ongoing and newly assembled DNA replication forks through distinct mechanisms. Cell Rep. 42 (7), 112792(2023).
  26. Bhowmick, R., Mehta, K. P. M., Lerdrup, M., Cortez, D. Integrator facilitates RNApii removal to prevent transcription-replication collisions and genome instability. Mol Cell. 83 (13), 2357-2366.e8 (2023).
  27. Mosler, T., et al. R-loop proximity proteomics identifies a role of ddx41 in transcription-associated genomic instability. Nat Commun. 12 (1), 7314(2021).
  28. Petermann, E., Orta, M. L., Issaeva, N., Schultz, N., Helleday, T. Hydroxyurea-stalled replication forks become progressively inactivated and require two different rad51-mediated pathways for restart and repair. Mol Cell. 37 (4), 492-502 (2010).
  29. Sestili, P., Cantoni, O. Osmotically driven radial diffusion of single-stranded DNA fragments on an agarose bed as a convenient measure of DNA strand scission. Free Radic Biol Med. 26 (7-8), 1019-1026 (1999).
  30. Sestili, P., Martinelli, C., Stocchi, V. The fast halo assay: An improved method to quantify genomic DNA strand breakage at the single-cell level. Mutat Res. 607 (2), 205-214 (2006).
  31. Gorczyca, W., Gong, J., Darzynkiewicz, Z. Detection of DNA strand breaks in individual apoptotic cells by the in situ terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase and nick translation assays. Cancer Res. 53 (8), 1945-1951 (1993).
  32. Hanada, K., et al. The structure-specific endonuclease mus81 contributes to replication restart by generating double-strand DNA breaks. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 14 (11), 1096-1104 (2007).

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Reprints and Permissions

Explore More Articles

Replication StressGenome InstabilityDNA Damage DetectionReplication ForksChromatin RemodelersSingle-Strand DNA GapsHuman Cell DivisionGel Electrophoresis
Detection of DNA Breaks in Dividing Human Cells by Neutral Comet Assay
Contact Us
Recommend to Library

Privacy

Terms of Use

Policies

Copyright © 2026 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved.