Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 16, 2026

HPLC Measurement of the DNA Oxidation Biomarker, 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2’-deoxyguanosine, in Cultured Cells and Animal Tissues
Published on: August 1, 2015
Human and methodological sources of variability in the measurement of urinary 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2'-deoxyguanosine
Lars Barregard1, Peter Møller, Trine Henriksen
1Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. lars.barregard@amm.gu.se
Aims:
Urinary 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-oxodG) is a widely used biomarker of oxidative stress. However, variability between chromatographic and ELISA methods hampers interpretation of data, and this variability may increase should urine composition differ between individuals, leading to assay interference. Furthermore, optimal urine sampling conditions are not well defined. We performed inter-laboratory comparisons of 8-oxodG measurement between mass spectrometric-, electrochemical- and ELISA-based methods, using common within-technique calibrants to analyze 8-oxodG-spiked phosphate-buffered saline and urine samples. We also investigated human subject- and sample collection-related variables, as potential sources of variability.
Results:
Chromatographic assays showed high agreement across urines from different subjects, whereas ELISAs showed far more inter-laboratory variation and generally overestimated levels, compared to the chromatographic assays. Excretion rates in timed 'spot' samples showed strong correlations with 24 h excretion (the 'gold' standard) of urinary 8-oxodG (rp 0.67-0.90), although the associations were weaker for 8-oxodG adjusted for creatinine or specific gravity (SG). The within-individual excretion of 8-oxodG varied only moderately between days (CV 17% for 24 h excretion and 20% for first void, creatinine-corrected samples).
Innovation:
This is the first comprehensive study of both human and methodological factors influencing 8-oxodG measurement, providing key information for future studies with this important biomarker.
Conclusion:
ELISA variability is greater than chromatographic assay variability, and cannot determine absolute levels of 8-oxodG. Use of standardized calibrants greatly improves intra-technique agreement and, for the chromatographic assays, importantly allows integration of results for pooled analyses. If 24 h samples are not feasible, creatinine- or SG-adjusted first morning samples are recommended.
More Related Videos
05:13Quantifying the Level of 8-oxo-dG Using ELISA Assay to Evaluate Oxidative DNA Damage in MCF-7 Cells
Published on: May 24, 2024
12:15Quantification of three DNA Lesions by Mass Spectrometry and Assessment of Their Levels in Tissues of Mice Exposed to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter
Published on: May 29, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Urine Studies I: Urinalysis
Measurement of Bioavailability: Pharmacokinetic Methods
Measurement of Bioavailability: Pharmacodynamic Methods
Urine Studies II: Urine Culture and Sensitivity Test