Oxidative damage to cellular biomolecules, in particular DNA, has been proposed to play an important role in a number of patholgical conditions, including carcinogenesis. A much studied consequence of oxygen-centred radical damage to DNA is 8-oxo-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-oxodG). Using numerous techniques, this lesion has been quantified in various biological matrices, most notably DNA and urine. Until recently, it was understood that urinary 8-oxodG derives solely from DNA repair, although the processes which may yield the modified deoxynucleoside have never been thoroughly discussed. This review suggests that nucleotide excision repair and the action of a specific endonuclease may, in addition to the nucleotide pool, contribute significantly to levels of 8-oxodG in the urine. On this basis, urinary 8-oxodG represents an important biomarker of generalised, cellular oxidative stress. Current data from antioxidant supplementation trials are examined and the potential for such compounds to modulate DNA repair is considered. It is stressed that further work is required to link DNA, serum and urinary levels of 8-oxodG such that the kinetics of formation and clearance may be elucidated, facilitating greater understanding of the role played by oxidative stress in disease.

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 (r _p 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. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 18, 2377–2391.