The need for standardizing comet assay image analysis: a comparison of comet assay scoring software

Clicks: 8
ID: 337396
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #38 of 38 articles by views in mutation research/genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
The comet assay is a simple method to assess DNA damage. Although standardized protocols exist, there is no standard protocol for comet image analysis, representing a potential source of inter-laboratory variability. Several scoring programs exist, including commercially available (e.g. Comet IV) and freeware (e.g. CaspLab, CometScore and OpenComet). As costs frequently drive the selection of freeware, it is essential to evaluate their performance when compared to Comet IV (considered the reference method). This study compared these programs using comet images with varying levels of DNA damage, categorized into three data sets: (A) the full data set comprising comets with an extensive range of % Tail DNA, (B) a subset comprising comets with <15% Tail DNA (low damage), and (C) a subset with >50% Tail DNA (high damage). Across the full dataset and at high levels of DNA damage, most freeware programs differed significantly from Comet IV. CometScore was the only freeware that did not significantly differ from Comet IV in all three subsets. Correlation and agreement analyses revealed weaker associations for subset B, especially for OpenComet. CaspLab and OpenComet exhibited systematic and/or proportional biases, whereas CometScore consistently showed strong correlations and minimal bias relative to CometIV. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that freeware programs can provide acceptable performance, but they may deviate from Comet IV. Our results highlight the importance of informed software selection and the need for standardized and validated image analysis workflows, to improve the accuracy, reproducibility, and inter-laboratory comparability of comet assay data.
Reference Key
openalex_W7223938330 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Victoria Claudino Bastos, Miguel Collia, Ibbo Willems, Marcus S. Cooke, Amaya Azqueta, Roger Godschalk, Sabine A. S. Langie
Journal mutation research/genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/mutage/geag036
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/geag036
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.