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.

Of the DNA‐derived biomarkers of oxidative stress, urinary 8‐oxo‐7,8‐dihydro‐2′‐deoxyguanosine (8‐oxodG) is the most frequently measured. However, there is significant discrepancy between chromatographic and immunoassay approaches, and intratechnique agreement among all available chromatography‐based assays and ELISAs is yet to be established. This is a significant obstacle to their use in large molecular epidemiological studies. To evaluate the accuracy of intra/intertechnique and interlaboratory measurements, samples of phosphate buffered saline and urine, spiked with different concentrations of 8‐oxoG, together with a series of urine samples from healthy individuals were distributed to ESCULA members. All laboratories received identical samples, including 2 negative controls that contained no added 8‐oxodG. Data were returned from 17 laboratories, representing 20 methods, broadly classified as mass spectrometric (MS), electrochemical detection (EC), or enzyme‐linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA). Overall, there was good within‐technique agreement, with the majority of laboratories’ results lying within 1 SD of their consensus mean. However, ELISA showed more within‐technique variation than did the chromatographic techniques and, for the urine samples, reported higher values. Bland‐Altman plots revealed good agreement between MS and EC methods but concentration‐dependent deviation for ELISA. All methods ranked urine samples according to concentration similarly. Creatinine levels are routinely used as a correction factor for urine concentration, and therefore we also conducted an interlaboratory comparison of methods for urinary creatinine determination, in which the vast majority of values lay within 1 SD of the consensus value, irrespective of the analysis procedure. This study reveals greater consensus than previously expected, although concern remains over ELISA.—ESCULA [European Standards Committee on Urinary (DNA) Lesion Analysis], Evans, M. D., Olinski, R., Loft, S., Cooke, M. S. Toward consensus in the analysis of urinary 8‐oxo‐7,8‐dihydro‐2′‐deoxyguanosine as a noninvasive biomarker of oxidative stress. FASEB J. 24, 1249–1260 (2010). www.fasebj.org

Oxidatively generated damage to DNA has been implicated in the pathogenesis of a wide variety of diseases. Increasingly, interest is also focusing upon the effects of damage to the other nucleic acids, RNA and the (2'-deoxy-)ribonucleotide pools, and evidence is growing that these too may have an important role in disease. LC-MS/MS has the ability to provide absolute quantification of specific biomarkers, such as 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2'-deoxyGuo (8-oxodG), in both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, and 8-oxoGuo in RNA. However, significant quantities of tissue are needed, limiting its use in human biomonitoring studies. In contrast, the comet assay requires much less material, and as little as 5 μL of blood may be used, offering a minimally invasive means of assessing oxidative stress in vivo, but this is restricted to nuclear DNA damage only. Urine is an ideal matrix in which to non-invasively study nucleic acid-derived biomarkers of oxidative stress, and considerable progress has been made towards robustly validating these measurements, not least through the efforts of the European Standards Committee on Urinary (DNA) Lesion Analysis. For urine, LC-MS/MS is considered the gold standard approach, and although there have been improvements to the ELISA methodology, this is largely limited to 8-oxodG. Emerging DNA adductomics approaches, which either comprehensively assess the totality of adducts in DNA, or map DNA damage across the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes, offer the potential to considerably advance our understanding of the mechanistic role of oxidatively damaged nucleic acids in disease.

The exposure of living organisms to environmental stress triggers defensive responses resulting in the activation of protective processes. Whenever the exposure occurs at low doses, defensive effects overwhelm the adverse effects of the exposure; this adaptive situation is referred to as “hormesis”. Environmental, physical, and nutritional hormetins lead to the stimulation and strengthening of the maintenance and repair systems in cells and tissues. Exercise, heat, and irradiation are examples of physical hormetins, which activate heat shock-, DNA repair-, and anti-oxidative-stress responses. The health promoting effect of many bio-actives in fruits and vegetables can be seen as the effect of mildly toxic compounds triggering this adaptive stimulus. Numerous studies indicate that living organisms possess the ability to adapt to adverse environmental conditions, as exemplified by the fact that DNA damage and gene expression profiling in populations living in the environment with high levels of air pollution do not correspond to the concentrations of pollutants. The molecular mechanisms of the hormetic response include modulation of (a) transcription factor Nrf2 activating the synthesis of glutathione and the subsequent protection of the cell; (b) DNA methylation; and (c) microRNA. These findings provide evidence that hormesis is a toxicological event, occurring at low exposure doses to environmental stressors, having the benefit for the maintenance of a healthy status.