Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Genetics and Genomics›Comet Assay
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Comet Assay

Genetics and Genomics · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 6 min read

A genotoxicological technique for measuring DNA damage in an individual cell using single-cell gel electrophoresis.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (1,154 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

A genotoxicological technique for measuring DNA damage in an individual cell using single-cell gel electrophoresis. Cell DNA fragments assume a comet with tail formation on electrophoresis and are detected with an image analysis system. Alkaline assay conditions facilitate sensitive detection of single-strand damage.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Assay, Comet; Assays, Comet; Comet Assays; Electrophoresis, Gel, Single-Cell; Gel Electrophoresis, Single-Cell; Electrophoreses, Single-Cell Gel; Electrophoresis, Single-Cell Gel; Gel Electrophoreses, Single-Cell.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Electrophoresis, Agar Gel; Mutagenicity Tests
See also
DNA Damage

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 8,342 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Comet Assay” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 1,013 of them (12.1%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 4,169 records.

Reviews account for 254 records (3.0%) and meta-analyses for 28. Randomized controlled trials number 71 (0.9%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 0 records; 2000-2009: 3,220 records; 2010-2019: 4,169 records; 2020 onward: 1,013 records0through 19993,2202000-20094,1692010-20191,0132020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 19990
2000-20093,220
2010-20194,169
2020 onward1,013
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 3.0 percent; Meta-analyses: 0.3 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 0.9 percentReviews3.0% (254)Meta-analyses0.3% (28)Randomized controlled trials0.9% (71)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 8,342 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews2543.0%
Meta-analyses280.3%
Randomized controlled trials710.9%

Method: PubMed query "Comet Assay"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in genetics and genomics

Genetic findings vary widely in strength. A variant linked to a condition in one study may not replicate in other ancestries, and most common variants have small effects that are meaningful only in aggregate. Studies of rare, high-impact variants can support strong causal claims about a gene, while association studies describe statistical links that need functional and independent replication. Check the sample size, the ancestry of participants, whether results were replicated, and whether a laboratory or clinical outcome was actually measured.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Minimum Information for Reporting on the Comet Assay (MIRCA): recommendations for describing comet assay procedures and results
Møller P, Azqueta A, Boutet-Robinet E, Koppen G, Bonassi S, Milić M, et al.
2020Review article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
296cc by
PMID 33106678 · DOI · PMC7688437
Double stranded sperm DNA breaks, measured by Comet assay, are associated with unexplained recurrent miscarriage in couples without a female factor
Ribas-Maynou J, García-Peiró A, Fernandez-Encinas A, Amengual MJ, Prada E, Cortés P, et al.
2012Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
105cc by
PMID 23028579 · DOI · PMC3444447
Next generation high throughput DNA damage detection platform for genotoxic compound screening
Sykora P, Witt KL, Revanna P, Smith-Roe SL, Dismukes J, Lloyd DG, et al.
2018Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
84cc by
PMID 29426857 · DOI · PMC5807538
Double-stranded sperm DNA fragmentation measured with neutral comet assay as a predictor of IVF outcomes: evidence from three European clinics in a multi-centred prospective study
Humaidan P, Povlsen BB, Drakeley AJ, Jensen MB, Gabrielsen AV, McDowell SH, et al.
2026Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
4cc by
PMID 41903517 · DOI · PMC13139651

Minimum Information for Reporting on the Comet Assay (MIRCA): recommendations for describing comet assay procedures and results [1]

Review article Møller P, Azqueta A, Boutet-Robinet E, Koppen G, Bonassi S, Milić M, et al. · · 2020 · cited 296 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
The comet assay is a widely used test for the detection of DNA damage and repair activity.
Closing excerpt
Adherence to MIRCA recommendations should ensure that comet assay results can be easily interpreted and independently verified by other researchers.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (146 words)

The comet assay is a widely used test for the detection of DNA damage and repair activity. However, there are interlaboratory differences in reported levels of baseline and induced damage in the same experimental systems. These differences may be attributed to protocol differences, although it is difficult to identify the relevant conditions because detailed comet assay procedures are not always published. Here, we present a Consensus Statement for the Minimum Information for Reporting Comet Assay (MIRCA) providing recommendations for describing comet assay conditions and results. These recommendations differentiate between 'desirable' and 'essential' information: 'essential' information refers to the precise details that are necessary to assess the quality of the experimental work, whereas 'desirable' information relates to technical issues that might be encountered when repeating the experiments. Adherence to MIRCA recommendations should ensure that comet assay results can be easily interpreted and independently verified by other researchers.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 33106678 · DOI · PMC7688437

Double stranded sperm DNA breaks, measured by Comet assay, are associated with unexplained recurrent miscarriage in couples without a female factor [2]

Research article Ribas-Maynou J, García-Peiró A, Fernandez-Encinas A, Amengual MJ, Prada E, Cortés P, et al. · · 2012 · cited 105 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
It is known that sperm samples from recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) couples have an increase in their sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF), but no studies have been performed in order to identify differences between single stranded SDF (ssSDF) and double stranded SDF (dsSDF) in these patients.
Closing excerpt
This work identifies a very specific SDF profile related to the paternal risk of having RPL.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (308 words)

It is known that sperm samples from recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) couples have an increase in their sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF), but no studies have been performed in order to identify differences between single stranded SDF (ssSDF) and double stranded SDF (dsSDF) in these patients. This could be relevant because the type of DNA damage could have different effects. Semen samples were classified attending their clinical status: 25 fertile donors and 20 RPL patients with at least two unexplained first trimester miscarriages. SDF was analysed using alkaline and neutral Comet assay, SCD test and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), and ROC analysis including data from 105 more infertile patients (n = 150) was performed to establish predictive threshold values. SDF for alkaline and neutral Comet, and the SCD test was analysed in these categories of individuals. Data revealed the presence of two subgroups within fertile donors. The values obtained were 21.10±9.13, 23.35±10.45 and 12.31±4.31, respectively, for fertile donors with low values for both ssSDF and dsSDF; 27.86±12.64, 80.69±12.67 and 12.43±5.22, for fertile donors with low ssSDF and high dsSDF; and 33.61±15.50, 84.64±11.28 and 19.28±6.05, for unexplained RPL patients, also showing a low ssSDF and high dsSDF profile. This latter profile was seen in 85% of unexplained RPL and 33% of fertile donors, suggesting that it may be associated to a male risk factor for undergoing RPL. ROC analysis regarding recurrent miscarriage set the cut-off value at 77.50% of dsDNA SDF. PFGE for low ssSDF and high dsSDF profile samples and positive controls treated with DNase, to induce dsDNA breaks, showed a more intense band of about 48 kb, which fits the toroid model of DNA compaction in sperm, pointing out that some nuclease activity may be affecting their sperm DNA in RPL patients. This work identifies a very specific SDF profile related to the paternal risk of having RPL.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 23028579 · DOI · PMC3444447

Next generation high throughput DNA damage detection platform for genotoxic compound screening [3]

Research article Sykora P, Witt KL, Revanna P, Smith-Roe SL, Dismukes J, Lloyd DG, et al. · · 2018 · cited 84 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Methods for quantifying DNA damage, as well as repair of that damage, in a high-throughput format are lacking.
Closing excerpt
In summary, we demonstrated a high level of reproducibility and quantitative capacity for the CometChip Platform, making it suitable for high-throughput screening to identify and characterize genotoxic agents in large compound libraries, as well as for human epidemiological studies of genetic diversity relating to DNA damage and repair.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (200 words)

Methods for quantifying DNA damage, as well as repair of that damage, in a high-throughput format are lacking. Single cell gel electrophoresis (SCGE; comet assay) is a widely-used method due to its technical simplicity and sensitivity, but the standard comet assay has limitations in reproducibility and throughput. We have advanced the SCGE assay by creating a 96-well hardware platform coupled with dedicated data processing software (CometChip Platform). Based on the original cometchip approach, the CometChip Platform increases capacity ~200 times over the traditional slide-based SCGE protocol, with excellent reproducibility. We tested this platform in several applications, demonstrating a broad range of potential uses including the routine identification of DNA damaging agents, using a 74-compound library provided by the National Toxicology Program. Additionally, we demonstrated how this tool can be used to evaluate human populations by analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells to characterize susceptibility to genotoxic exposures, with implications for epidemiological studies. In summary, we demonstrated a high level of reproducibility and quantitative capacity for the CometChip Platform, making it suitable for high-throughput screening to identify and characterize genotoxic agents in large compound libraries, as well as for human epidemiological studies of genetic diversity relating to DNA damage and repair.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 29426857 · DOI · PMC5807538

Double-stranded sperm DNA fragmentation measured with neutral comet assay as a predictor of IVF outcomes: evidence from three European clinics in a multi-centred prospective study [4]

Research article Humaidan P, Povlsen BB, Drakeley AJ, Jensen MB, Gabrielsen AV, McDowell SH, et al. · · 2026 · cited 4 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Study questionCan measurement of double-stranded sperm DNA fragmentation (dsSDF) via a neutral comet assay predict the probability of live birth following IVF?
Closing excerpt
Trial registration numberN/A.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (500 words)

Study questionCan measurement of double-stranded sperm DNA fragmentation (dsSDF) via a neutral comet assay predict the probability of live birth following IVF?Summary answerIn a multicentre IVF cohort, dsSDF measured by a neutral comet assay was a strong, independent predictor of live birth.What is known alreadyWhile much of the focus has traditionally been on female factors, emerging research highlights sperm DNA fragmentation as a significant contributor to reproductive outcomes. Over the past decade, studies have shown that different types of sperm DNA damage can affect reproduction differently, with single-stranded breaks being closely linked to reduced spontaneous conception rates, while double-stranded breaks are linked to higher miscarriage rates.Study design, size, durationProspective cohort study including a total of 302 males from three European IVF clinics, over a 3-year study period (March 2021-October 2024), with 126 healthy sperm donors with confirmed live birth serving as controls.Participants/materials, setting, methodsdsSDF was quantified with a neutral comet assay, expressed as Average Comet Score (ACS) and Incidence of Damage (IOD). The primary outcome was live birth per initiated cycle. Associations were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for female and male age (and centre in sensitivity analyses).Main results and the role of chanceAcross the cohort, 30% of couples achieved a live birth. Higher dsSDF was associated with reduced odds of live birth, and this association remained statistically significant after adjustment for female age, male age, and recruitment site. Both ACS and IOD were independently predictive of live birth in adjusted models. For ACS, each 1-point increase was associated with 16% lower odds of live birth (OR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.97; P = 0.026). For IOD, each 1-point increase corresponded to 5% lower odds of live birth (OR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-0.99; P = 0.025). As expected, female age remained a strong inverse predictor of live birth across models (OR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.94; P Limitations, reasons for cautionThis study examined couples undergoing their first or only IVF cycle and did not include couples with repeat IVF failures. Limitations include potential centre-level confounding, which may benefit from mixed-effects modelling. We did not collect or adjust for several cycle-level covariates that influence live birth (e.g. IVF vs ICSI, number of oocytes retrieved, embryo transfer strategy, use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, stimulation protocol), so residual confounding is possible.Wider implications of the findingsThese results support dsSDF as a clinically relevant biomarker that complements conventional semen parameters.Study funding/competing interest(s)The study was part-funded using an unrestricted medical educational grant provided by Merck Serono Limited (0111897641) to the Liverpool Women's Hospital. T.C.B.M., S.H.M., and E.B. were funded in part by UKRI SIP FMI and Peace Plus HF-TIC grants with Ulster University. L.R., A.S., M.L., C.J.L., L.P., and T.C.B.M. are employed at Examen Lab LTD. A.J.D. is a recipient of Merck Serono Limited (0111897641) grant to the Liverpool Women's Hospital. P.H. has received unrestricted research grants from Merck and Gedeon Richter Nordics and honoraria for lectures from Merck, Gedeon Richter, and IBSA. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.Trial registration numberN/A.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41903517 · DOI · PMC13139651

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article The comet assay for DNA damage and repair: principles, applications, and limitations [5]
    Collins AR · Mol Biotechnol · 2004 · cited 1,881 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Recommendations for conducting the in vivo alkaline Comet assay. 4th International Comet Assay Workshop [6]
    Hartmann A, Agurell E, Beevers C, Brendler-Schwaab S, Burlinson B, Clay P, et al. · Mutagenesis · 2003 · cited 691 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article The comet assay: topical issues [7]
    Collins AR, Oscoz AA, Brunborg G, Gaivão I, Giovannelli L, Kruszewski M, et al. · Mutagenesis · 2008 · cited 646 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Use of the single cell gel electrophoresis/comet assay for detecting DNA damage in aquatic (marine and freshwater) animals [8]
    Lee RF, Steinert S · Mutat Res · 2003 · cited 357 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Fourth International Workgroup on Genotoxicity testing: results of the in vivo Comet assay workgroup [9]
    Burlinson B, Tice RR, Speit G, Agurell E, Brendler-Schwaab SY, Collins AR, et al. · Mutat Res · 2007 · cited 346 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article The essential comet assay: a comprehensive guide to measuring DNA damage and repair [10]
    Azqueta A, Collins AR · Arch Toxicol · 2013 · cited 321 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Møller P, Azqueta A, Boutet-Robinet E, Koppen G, Bonassi S, Milić M, et al.. Minimum Information for Reporting on the Comet Assay (MIRCA): recommendations for describing comet assay procedures and results. . 2020. PMID 33106678 · DOI · PMC7688437
  2. Ribas-Maynou J, García-Peiró A, Fernandez-Encinas A, Amengual MJ, Prada E, Cortés P, et al.. Double stranded sperm DNA breaks, measured by Comet assay, are associated with unexplained recurrent miscarriage in couples without a female factor. . 2012. PMID 23028579 · DOI · PMC3444447
  3. Sykora P, Witt KL, Revanna P, Smith-Roe SL, Dismukes J, Lloyd DG, et al.. Next generation high throughput DNA damage detection platform for genotoxic compound screening. . 2018. PMID 29426857 · DOI · PMC5807538
  4. Humaidan P, Povlsen BB, Drakeley AJ, Jensen MB, Gabrielsen AV, McDowell SH, et al.. Double-stranded sperm DNA fragmentation measured with neutral comet assay as a predictor of IVF outcomes: evidence from three European clinics in a multi-centred prospective study. . 2026. PMID 41903517 · DOI · PMC13139651
  5. Collins AR. The comet assay for DNA damage and repair: principles, applications, and limitations. Mol Biotechnol. 2004. PMID 15004294 · DOI
  6. Hartmann A, Agurell E, Beevers C, Brendler-Schwaab S, Burlinson B, Clay P, et al.. Recommendations for conducting the in vivo alkaline Comet assay. 4th International Comet Assay Workshop. Mutagenesis. 2003. PMID 12473734 · DOI
  7. Collins AR, Oscoz AA, Brunborg G, Gaivão I, Giovannelli L, Kruszewski M, et al.. The comet assay: topical issues. Mutagenesis. 2008. PMID 18283046 · DOI
  8. Lee RF, Steinert S. Use of the single cell gel electrophoresis/comet assay for detecting DNA damage in aquatic (marine and freshwater) animals. Mutat Res. 2003. PMID 12888107 · DOI
  9. Burlinson B, Tice RR, Speit G, Agurell E, Brendler-Schwaab SY, Collins AR, et al.. Fourth International Workgroup on Genotoxicity testing: results of the in vivo Comet assay workgroup. Mutat Res. 2007. PMID 17118697 · DOI
  10. Azqueta A, Collins AR. The essential comet assay: a comprehensive guide to measuring DNA damage and repair. Arch Toxicol. 2013. PMID 23685795 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Peptide MappingGenetics and Genomics
  • IontophoresisPharmacology
  • Molecular TypingGenetics and Genomics
  • KaryotypeGenetics and Genomics
  • Mutation RateGenetics and Genomics
  • Cell DeathMolecular Biology

All 95 articles in Genetics and Genomics →

At a glance

8,342
PubMed records on this heading
12%
published since 2020
254
review articles
71
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Peptide MappingGenetics and Genomics
  • IontophoresisPharmacology
  • Molecular TypingGenetics and Genomics
  • KaryotypeGenetics and Genomics
  • Mutation RateGenetics and Genomics

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support