Abstract Knowledge about the basal level of DNA damage in leucocytes of healthy control populations is essential before estimation of the effects of exposure to external agents in biomonitoring studies. The aim of this study was to analyse the effects of some lifestyle factors on baseline DNA damage in leucocytes of humans. The material consisted of the peripheral blood from 276 healthy volunteer blood donors. In addition to the standard blood donation questionnaire, they were asked about age, gender, occupation, radiological history, smoking habit, alcohol consumption, medicine use and pet ownership. The results showed marked intra-individual variability. Significant differences in DNA damage levels were observed between individuals in different age and sex groups, between smokers and non-smokers and between samples taken in different seasons of the year, with the highest DNA damage in those obtained in the summer. Significantly higher levels of DNA damage were noted in leucocytes of donors older than 29 years, in men compared with women and in male smokers. Significantly higher DNA strand breaks were observed in heavy smokers. A non-significantly higher level of DNA damage was observed in individuals subjected to radiological investigation and in those drinking alcohol, whereas lower levels were observed in leucocytes of pet owners and in donors taking medicines. Pet ownership influences the level of DNA damage and there is an interaction between this effect and that of smoking. The smoker/pet owners showed almost half the level of DNA damage of smokers without pets. The current results confirmed high intra-individual variability between the levels of DNA damage of individuals. The significant factors that influence the DNA damage in leucocytes are age, sex and smoking habit, especially in men and in heavy smokers. The finding of reduced DNA damage in the leucocytes of pet owners suggests the tendency towards a beneficial effect of such company. Introduction The comet assay, also called single-cell gel electrophoresis assay, is used to detect DNA single- and double-strand breaks and kinetics of their repair. The alkaline method, developed by Singh et al. (1), allows the detection of DNA denaturation and alkali-label sites. DNA strand breaks in single cells are visualised by the increased migration of DNA segments. This helps in the estimation of intercellular disparity. The mechanism of formation of comets is best understood by analogy with nucleotides. The chromatin loops containing a break loose their supercoiling and became free to be pulled towards the anode under the electrophoresis field.(2) The comet assay is a sensitive, fast and relatively cheap method, so it is widely used. It is used among others for detection of the genotoxic exposure of different chemical and physical agents in different, including occupationally exposed populations. This method might be useful in comparative studies regarding the difference in sensitivity and repair capacity of healthy and ill persons. The comet assay was recommended as a marker of exposure to genotoxic agents, indicating early biological effects in human biomonitoring studies (3–7). In recent years, there have been numerous papers published where the comet assay has been used to assess DNA damage in different populations (8–13). DNA is susceptible to damage from different endogenous and exogenous sources. Such damage can cause cell death and eliminate potentially dangerous cells, or lead to either erroneous or correct DNA repair. Cells have repair systems that may delete or repair damage. Misrepaired damage may result in chromosomal damage or mutations, or cause acute adverse effects within hours to weeks or delayed effects within months to years after exposure. There are many agents that can cause DNA damage, such as chemical agents (14,15), environmental pollutants (16,17), ionising radiation (12,18), ultraviolet radiation (19,20), physical exercise (21,22) and diet (23,24). The level of DNA damage may be higher in older people (25) and in smokers (23,26). Moreover, DNA damage has been associated with a number of illnesses, for example infections (27), and with neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases (28,29). As there are few studies describing the basal level of DNA damage in white blood cells of healthy control populations, which is essential before the estimation of the effects of exposure to external agents in biomonitoring studies, we decided to investigate a large population of healthy blood donors in order to extend knowledge on this topic. The aim of the present study was to analyse the effects of some selected lifestyle factors on the baseline DNA damage in leucocytes of peripheral blood of humans. Although the majority of factors studied here have already been investigated, it is very important to study again confounding factors, for example smoking habit and age. Moreover, we have studied the effects of different kinds of radiological investigations and of taking different kinds of medicines. For the first time, we investigated the association between DNA damage in leucocytes and pet ownership. Materials and methods The study was performed in accordance with standards of ethics, with the authors having obtained the agreement of the Bioethical Commission on the conducting current research. Collection of samples All blood donors were volunteers entering the Blood Donation Unit in Warsaw. They were informed about the use of their blood also for scientific purpose and they agreed. Donors were also informed about the aim of the experiment and experimental details. All donors filled the standard questionnaire for blood donation designed to obtain relevant details and current health status and illness history. In addition, they were asked about employment, medicine use, pet ownership, smoking habit, alcohol consumption and radiological investigation within the past year. These factors were chosen with the consideration that they need to be easy to describe by donors. We did not ask about factors that would have needed an exact description, such as exercises and sun exposure, in order to avoid donors opting out for reason of excessive questionnaire length. All donors were healthy at the time of blood donation. Samples consisting of 1 ml of whole venous blood were collected from blood donors by venepuncture under sterile conditions, drawn into heparinised tubes and coded. Preparation of slides Whole blood was diluted in RPMI 1640 medium with l-glutamine in relation 1:10. The cells were checked for their viability using trypan blue dye. Then, diluted blood (50 µl) was mixed with 0.5% low melting point agarose (LMPA) and dropped on each of two microscope slides covered with normal melting point agarose. After solidifying the agarose at 4°C, another layer of LMPA was added and allowed to solidify at 4°C again. For further steps, the basic method described by Singh et al. (1) was used. The slides were immersed in freshly prepared cold lysing solution (2.5 M NaCl, 100 mM Na2EDTA, 10 mM Tris, pH 10, 1% sodium sarcosinate), with 1% Triton X-100 and 10% dimethylsulphoxide added just before use, overnight at 4°C. Electrophoresis After lysis, the slides were drained and placed in a horizontal gel electrophoresis tank side-by-side avoiding spaces. Freshly prepared and chilled electrophoresis solution (1 mM Na2EDTA and 300 mM NaOH, pH >13) was poured in the electrophoresis tank to a level ~0.25 cm above the slides. The slides were incubated in this solution for 20 min to allow DNA unwinding and expression of alkali labile sites as DNA breaks. Alkaline electrophoresis was conducted for 20 min at 4°C, 24 V (0.96 V/cm) and 300 mA. All these steps were performed under dimmed light to avoid additional DNA damage. The slides were then washed three times for 5 min with neutralising Tris buffer (0.4 M Tris, pH7.5) to neutralise excess alkali. Staining and slide scoring After neutralisation, the slides were stained with ethidium bromide. Slides were placed in a humidified airtight container to prevent drying of the gel and analysed within 3–4 h. Slides were examined using a fluorescence microscope. Images of 200 randomly selected leucocytes (100 cells from each of 2 replicate slides) were analysed from each donor. According to the procedure described earlier(30), cells were graded by eye into five categories based on the distance of migration and perceived proportion of DNA in the tail: (0) no damage, <5%; (A) low-level damage, 5–20%; (B) medium-level damage, 20–40%; (C) high-level damage 40–95%; (D) total damage, >95% and given a value 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 (from undamaged—0 to maximally damaged—4). The same person categorised DNA damage in all samples. To obtain a semi-quantitative analysis of the data, the score of DNA damage (the migration of DNA) was calculated as follows: percentage of cells with category A, plus percentage of cells with category Bx2, plus percentage of cells with category Cx3 and plus percentage of cell with category Dx4. The score may range from 0 (all undamaged) to 400 (all totally damaged). Statistical analysis Our data violated the normality test and equal variance test required for the parametric analysis of variance statistics. The non-parametric the Kruskal–Wallis test by ranks and the median test were used for multiple one factor analysis. Comparisons between groups were done using the Mann–Whitney U test as post-hoc test. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. In addition, multifactor analysis of variance was used to compare some factors. Similarly, P < 0.05 were considered significant. Results There were 276 samples collected from blood donors of mixed occupation (students, administrative employees, blue-collar workers, doctors, nurses, technicians, teachers, policemen and saleswomen from food department) aged from 18 to 58 years, including 118 females and 158 males. Among blue-collar workers, there were construction workers, electricians, painters, horticultural workers, laboratory workers, stockmen, mechanics and plumbers. Young persons prevailed among donors. The majority of them (165 persons, i.e. 55%) were aged from 18 to 29 years. Among them, there were 87 females and 78 males. Moreover, there were 45 persons (8 females and 37 males) aged from 30 to 39 years, 40 individuals (13 females and 27 males) aged from 40 to 49 years and 26 individuals (10 females and 16 males) older than 50 years (Table 1). Table 1. Demographic characteristic of donors Total Females Males Donors, n 276 118 (42.8%) 158 (57.2%) Age (years) ± SD 30.2 ± 11.6 27.3 ± 11.2 32.3 ± 11.6 No 18- to 29-year-old donors 165 87 78 No 30- to 39-year-old donors 45 8 37 No 40- to 49-year-old donors 40 13 27 No 50+ donors 26 10 16 Total Females Males Donors, n 276 118 (42.8%) 158 (57.2%) Age (years) ± SD 30.2 ± 11.6 27.3 ± 11.2 32.3 ± 11.6 No 18- to 29-year-old donors 165 87 78 No 30- to 39-year-old donors 45 8 37 No 40- to 49-year-old donors 40 13 27 No 50+ donors 26 10 16 View Large The characteristics of donor groups are shown in Table 2. Among blood donors there were 45.6% of smokers and 54.4% of non-smokers, among men 49.7% and 50.3% and among women 41% and 59%, respectively. The majority of donors (75%) declared consumption of alcohol compared with 25% abstinence. Simultaneously, the majority of donors (70%) had taken medicines (antibiotics, pain killers, calmants, cardiac, sleep-inducing, antiallergic and hormonal) and had pets (dog, cat, parrot, hamster, rat, fishes, chinchilla, canary bird, turtle and guinea pig) at home (59%) within the past year. There were 60.5% donors with radiological history. Table 2. Characteristics of donor group with regard to investigated factors Number (Percent) of donors Yes No Smoking habit 127 (46.0) 149 (54.0) Female smokers/non-smokers 48 (41.0) 69 (58.9) Male smokers/non-smokers 79 (49.7) 80 (93.3) Alcohol consumption 207 (75.0) 69 (25.0) Medicinal usage 213 (77.2) 63 (22.8) Pets at home 163 (59.0) 113 (41.0) Radiological investigations 167 (60.5) 109 (39.5) Number (Percent) of donors Yes No Smoking habit 127 (46.0) 149 (54.0) Female smokers/non-smokers 48 (41.0) 69 (58.9) Male smokers/non-smokers 79 (49.7) 80 (93.3) Alcohol consumption 207 (75.0) 69 (25.0) Medicinal usage 213 (77.2) 63 (22.8) Pets at home 163 (59.0) 113 (41.0) Radiological investigations 167 (60.5) 109 (39.5) View Large Cell viability always exceeded 92%. The mean of scored DNA damage in peripheral blood leucocytes of investigated donors was 24.07 ± 22.36, with median 16.25; however, there was marked intra-individual variability (Figure 1). DNA damage varied between 0.5 in the blood of a 20-year-old female non-smoker student to 186 in the leucocytes of a 40-year-old male smoker employed as an electrician. The DNA damage levels in peripheral blood leucocytes in different subgroups of blood donors are shown in Table 3. Generally, the mean level of DNA damage was significantly lower in leucocytes from women (21.05 ± 20.74), when compared with men (26.12 ± 23.38). Considering the age groups, the results showed that DNA damage was higher in older groups compared with younger groups. The highest level of DNA damage was noted in the leucocytes of individuals aged from 40 to 49 years (mean 39.23 ± 35.40, median 33.75), whereas the lowest in the subgroup of the youngest donors aged from 18 to 29 years donors (mean 18.49 ± 14.90, median 13.00). DNA damage in the groups of donors aged 30–39, 40–49 and >50 years was significantly higher compared with the group of the youngest donors (P < 0.05 by Mann–Whitney U test). Higher levels of DNA damage were noted in the blood of smokers (mean 25.41 ± 25.06) than that of non-smokers (mean 19.84 ± 17.69). Such differences were higher in the peripheral blood leucocytes of men. DNA damage levels in male smokers were significantly higher (27.99 ± 26.10, with median value 22.00) compared with male non-smokers, where mean DNA damage was 21.38 ± 19.54 with median 16.00 (P < 0.05 by Mann–Whitney U test). The differences were much larger when smokers were divided into two subgroups: heavy smokers (over 20 cigarettes daily) and moderate smokers (1–17 cigarettes daily). There were no subjects declaring smoking 18 or 19 cigarettes daily. The mean level of DNA damage in the subgroup of heavy smokers was significantly higher (34.44 ± 24.12 with median 31.00) compared with the subgroup of moderate smokers (23.23 ± 25.51, with median 14.50) and non-smokers (P < 0.05 by Mann–Whitney U test). The level of DNA damage in the leucocytes of moderate smokers was not significantly higher compared with non-smokers. Subjecting to radiological investigation or consumption of alcohol induced slightly higher levels of DNA damage in white blood cells, 23.64 ± 21.93 vs. 19.10 ± 14.68 or 21.90 ± 21.51 vs. 19.71 ± 16.92, respectively. In turn, medicine use or pet ownership was associated with low levels of DNA damage, 21.57 ± 19,76 vs. 23.02 ± 15.92 or 19.37 ± 16.67 vs. 26.04 ± 26.60, respectively. Among radiological investigations, the highest level of DNA damage was induced by chest imaging in combination with other imaging (30.81 ± 33.59) and investigations of the hand, leg or vertebral column (27.00 ± 22.32), whereas the lowest levels of damage were induced by teeth or sinuses imaging (17.90 ± 10.64). The above results were not statistically significant compared with the leucocytes of subjects without radiological investigations. In the case of medicine use, the lowest level of DNA damage was induced by antiallergic (15.04 ± 9.41) and hormonal (18.13 ± 23.50) medicines, but only the results of the last subgroup were significantly different compared with the blood of subjects not having used medicines by Mann–Whitney U test. The level of DNA damage was similar in subgroups owing different pets. Fig. 1. View largeDownload slide Mean DNA migration in individual blood samples Fig. 1. View largeDownload slide Mean DNA migration in individual blood samples Table 3. DNA damage in different subgroups of blood donors Name of subgroup Individuals (n) Comet score mean ± SD, median Total 276 24.07 ± 22.36, 16.25 Women 118 21.05 ± 20.74, 12.50 Men 158 26.12 ± 23.38,a 19.50 18–29 years old 165 18.49 ± 14.90, 13.00 30–39 years old 45 29.23 ± 20.60,b 24.00 40–49 years old 40 39.23 ± 35.40,b 33.75 Over 50 years old 26 32.81 ± 26.65,b 31.00 Smokers 127 25.41 ± 25.06, 16.00 Non-smokers 149 19.84 ± 17.69, 15.25 Men smokers 78 27.92 ± 26.10,c 22.00 Men non-smokers 80 21.38 ± 19.54, 16.00 Women smokers 49 20.88 ± 23.73, 10.50 Women non-smokers 69 17.29 ± 14.30, 12.50 Heavy smokers 33 34.44 ± 24.12,d, e 31.00 Moderate smokers 94 23.23 ± 25.51, 14.50 Non-smokers 149 19.84 ± 17.69, 15.25 Radiological investigation (+) 167 23.64 ± 21.93, 16.00 Chest only 63 21.57 ± 18.86, 15.50 Chest + other 21 30.81 ± 33.59, 15.50 Teeth or sinuses 24 17.90 ± 10.64, 16.50 Hand, leg or vertebral column 23 27.00 ± 22.32, 18.25 Three different or more 20 22.65 ± 26.88, 11.75 Radiological investigation (−) 109 19.10 ± 14.68, 14.25 Pets (+) 163 19.37 ± 16.67, 13.50 Cat 29 18.21 ± 14.21, 13.00 Dog 67 18.21 ± 16.28, 13.00 Others 29 17.12 ± 14.56, 11.00 Cat + dog 38 19.96 ± 15.74, 15.50 Pets (−) 113 26.04 ± 26.60, 17.50 Alcohol (+) 207 21.90 ± 21.51, 15.50 Alcohol (−) 69 19.71 ± 16.92, 11.50 Medicines (+) 233 21.57 ± 19.76, 15.00 Antibiotics only 14 19.38 ± 14.36, 15.75 antibiotics + painkillers 41 22.62 ± 21.71, 16.00 Pain killers only 55 20.15 ± 20.98, 12.00 Pain killers + others 26 22.15 ± 19.59, 15.00 Three or more different 27 21.68 ± 22.93, 16.75 Antiallergic 28 15.04 ± 9.41, 12.50 Hormonal 28 18.13 ± 23.50, 9.00f Medicines (−) 43 23.02 ± 15.92, 19.50 Summer 63 38.82 ± 29.07, 35.00g Autumn 95 30.54 ± 19.83, 24.00g Winter 120 10.24 ± 7.22, 9.00g Name of subgroup Individuals (n) Comet score mean ± SD, median Total 276 24.07 ± 22.36, 16.25 Women 118 21.05 ± 20.74, 12.50 Men 158 26.12 ± 23.38,a 19.50 18–29 years old 165 18.49 ± 14.90, 13.00 30–39 years old 45 29.23 ± 20.60,b 24.00 40–49 years old 40 39.23 ± 35.40,b 33.75 Over 50 years old 26 32.81 ± 26.65,b 31.00 Smokers 127 25.41 ± 25.06, 16.00 Non-smokers 149 19.84 ± 17.69, 15.25 Men smokers 78 27.92 ± 26.10,c 22.00 Men non-smokers 80 21.38 ± 19.54, 16.00 Women smokers 49 20.88 ± 23.73, 10.50 Women non-smokers 69 17.29 ± 14.30, 12.50 Heavy smokers 33 34.44 ± 24.12,d, e 31.00 Moderate smokers 94 23.23 ± 25.51, 14.50 Non-smokers 149 19.84 ± 17.69, 15.25 Radiological investigation (+) 167 23.64 ± 21.93, 16.00 Chest only 63 21.57 ± 18.86, 15.50 Chest + other 21 30.81 ± 33.59, 15.50 Teeth or sinuses 24 17.90 ± 10.64, 16.50 Hand, leg or vertebral column 23 27.00 ± 22.32, 18.25 Three different or more 20 22.65 ± 26.88, 11.75 Radiological investigation (−) 109 19.10 ± 14.68, 14.25 Pets (+) 163 19.37 ± 16.67, 13.50 Cat 29 18.21 ± 14.21, 13.00 Dog 67 18.21 ± 16.28, 13.00 Others 29 17.12 ± 14.56, 11.00 Cat + dog 38 19.96 ± 15.74, 15.50 Pets (−) 113 26.04 ± 26.60, 17.50 Alcohol (+) 207 21.90 ± 21.51, 15.50 Alcohol (−) 69 19.71 ± 16.92, 11.50 Medicines (+) 233 21.57 ± 19.76, 15.00 Antibiotics only 14 19.38 ± 14.36, 15.75 antibiotics + painkillers 41 22.62 ± 21.71, 16.00 Pain killers only 55 20.15 ± 20.98, 12.00 Pain killers + others 26 22.15 ± 19.59, 15.00 Three or more different 27 21.68 ± 22.93, 16.75 Antiallergic 28 15.04 ± 9.41, 12.50 Hormonal 28 18.13 ± 23.50, 9.00f Medicines (−) 43 23.02 ± 15.92, 19.50 Summer 63 38.82 ± 29.07, 35.00g Autumn 95 30.54 ± 19.83, 24.00g Winter 120 10.24 ± 7.22, 9.00g aP < 0.05 compared to women by Mann–Whitney U test. bP < 0.05 compared to the group of 18- to 29-year olds by Mann–Whitney U test. cP < 0.05 compared to men non-smokers by Mann–Whitney U test. dP < 0.05 compared to non-smokers by Mann–Whitney U test. eP < 0.05 compared to moderate smokers by Mann–Whitney U test. fP < 0.05 compared to medicines (−). gP < 0.05 compared to two other group of seasons. View Large The levels of DNA damage differ significantly between samples taken in different seasons. The level of DNA damage was highest in the summer (38.82 ± 29.07), lower in the autumn (30.54 ± 19.83) and the lowest in the winter (10.24 ± 7.22). A multifactorial analysis, also for the full model with interactions, showed that only pet ownership affects DNA damage (P = 0.03). Moreover, there was an interaction between pet ownership and smoking (P = 0.008; Table 4). Pet ownership seems to be the factor, which moderates the harmful effects of smoking. The mean level of DNA damage in the group of smoker/no pet was 33.75 ± 33.68, whereas in the group of smoker/pet owner the mean level was 17.83 ± 14.59. For comparison, the mean levels of DNA damage in the groups of non-smoker/pet owner and non-smoker/no pet were 19.74 ± 17.08 and 19.49 ± 16.21, respectively. Table 4. Results of analysis of variance for chosen interactions Source of variation Degree of freedom Mean square F P-value Sex (S) 1 166.98 0.58 0.45 Smoking (SM) 1 212,26 0.74 0.39 Radiology (R) 1 868.42 3.04 0.08 Pets ownership(P) 1 1384.72 4.85 0.03 Alcohol (A) 1 39.11 0.14 0.71 Medicines (M) 1 408.55 1.43 0.23 SM + P 1 2608.15 7.18 0.008 SM + M 1 469.72 1.29 0.26 P + M 1 60.90 0.17 0.68 SM + P + M 1 334.05 0.92 0.34 SM + A 1 138.25 0.39 0.53 A + M 1 20.02 0.06 0.81 SM + A + M 1 406.94 1.15 0.28 Source of variation Degree of freedom Mean square F P-value Sex (S) 1 166.98 0.58 0.45 Smoking (SM) 1 212,26 0.74 0.39 Radiology (R) 1 868.42 3.04 0.08 Pets ownership(P) 1 1384.72 4.85 0.03 Alcohol (A) 1 39.11 0.14 0.71 Medicines (M) 1 408.55 1.43 0.23 SM + P 1 2608.15 7.18 0.008 SM + M 1 469.72 1.29 0.26 P + M 1 60.90 0.17 0.68 SM + P + M 1 334.05 0.92 0.34 SM + A 1 138.25 0.39 0.53 A + M 1 20.02 0.06 0.81 SM + A + M 1 406.94 1.15 0.28 View Large Discussion Human blood, which is a very convenient source of cells, is very often used for biomonitoring studies. White blood cells are easily obtained in a relatively non-invasive way and are available in large numbers. Leucocytes, including lymphocytes, in contrast to erythrocytes, possess nuclei, they are diploid and are almost all in the same phase (G0) of the cell cycle. They circulate throughout the whole body, and thus can be seen as reflecting the overall state of the organism with regard to exposure towards investigated factors (2,31). The mean level of DNA damage among our volunteers was 24.07, and the intra-individual variability, among 276 samples, was high (SD = 22.36). The highest level of DNA damage of white blood cells exceeded 180 (186), whereas the lowest was <1 (0.5). Other authors have observed intra-individual differences in the level of DNA damage among control populations, however, in a smaller range, but this might be because of a lower number of subjects (12,32–35). Our study (Figure 1) showed that blood samples with lower numbers have much more variation than that with high numbers. The main reason is that samples with higher numbers were taken from younger individuals. The mean age of donors of sample numbers 1–138 is 32.67 ± 11.50, whereas the mean age of donors of sample numbers 139–276 is 27.80 ± 11.25. The basal level of DNA damage might be attributed among others to the occupational exposure and smoking habits. Smoking habit significantly influenced the level of primary DNA damage (35). The current study shows an increase in DNA damage of leucocytes in the blood of smoking individuals, significantly in men and in the case of heavy smokers, that is persons smoking more than 20 cigarettes per day. Tobacco smoking is a factor known to alter the structure of DNA. Although the cigarette smoking was found a most important factor causing DNA damage, numerous studies did not find any differences between DNA damage of cells in smokers and non-smokers (34,36–38), or did not indicate a relationship between DNA damage and the number of cigarette smoked per day (34,38–46). However, other authors showed that smoking was associated with the higher levels of DNA damage (23,47). Significantly higher levels of DNA damage in smokers, but without the influence of the number of cigarettes smoked per day, were noted by Lee et al. (48). In contrast, Fracasso et al. (49) showed that the comet parameters correlated with the number of cigarettes smoked per day. In the present study, very low levels of DNA damage were noted in the group of the youngest donors (18–29 years). With increasing age, the mean level of DNA damage increased significantly up to the age of 49 years, and surprisingly slightly decreased in the oldest group of blood donors (50–58 years). No age-related effects were noted previously by several authors (42,43,50–54), but others observed the changes in DNA damage in different age groups. For instance, Singh et al. (25) reported increased DNA damage in people aged over 60 years. The Greece study showed that men aged 55–60 years had a 14.5% higher level of DNA damage in lymphocytes than 20–25 year olds(47). Significant correlations between age and the level of DNA damage in a control population were also observed by other authors (23,55). Løhr et al. (56) showed an association between age and the level of oxidatively damaged DNA in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, particularly in women, where the results for the youngest (18–29 years) groups was significantly different from the results of those groups aged 54–69 and 70–93 years. Dharwan et al. (23) reported that people over 30 years old had higher DNA damage than those younger. This finding is similar to our results. The nuclear DNA damage being correlated with age is associated with declining DNA repair caused by declining efficiency of DNA repair enzymes (57,58). A meta-analysis study confirmed an association between age and DNA damage in humans, which could be connected with DNA damage accumulation (59). The reason for DNA damage accumulating with age may be an increased production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). This may be associated with cellular metabolism involving oxygen, metals and other metabolites, which decrease scavenging of ROS by antioxidants or a failure of cells to repair DNA damage (60–64). Schumacher et al. (65) and Hoeijamakers (66) suggested that accumulation of unrepaired DNA damage, which decreases genomic integrity is a major source of stochastic changes that can influence ageing. The accumulation of DNA damage with age could be mediated by metabolic factors, including plasma lipids, glycosylated hemoglobin and intake of alcohol, which was positively associated with the level of oxidatively induced DNA damage (56). Results of some studies showed that lifestyle also has an important role in the accumulation of damage to DNA (60,67). The following factors may be responsible for the accumulation of DNA damage: smoking, alcohol intake, environmental exposure, psychological stress and physical activity (21,67–69). There are differences between the levels of DNA damage between genders. As previous studies have shown, men may have more DNA damage in leucocytes than women (32) or, in contrast, women’s blood may show higher DNA damage (3). Lam et al. (70) found male gender to be a risk factor for increased genetic damage. Higher level of DNA damage in males than in females was noted in the Indian population (71). Kopjar et al.(35) noted that in the general population of Croatia, there is a little higher, but not significantly higher, level of DNA damage in lymphocytes of men. This observation was confirmed in the current study, where men’s leucocytes had higher level of DNA damage than women’s leucocytes. Diagnostic X-rays exposure most efficiently enhanced the levels of primary DNA damage (35). In the current study, the level of DNA damage in leucocytes of people subjected to radiological investigations was not significantly higher compared with that of non-investigated individuals. The present study showed slightly, but not significantly, lower level of DNA damage in donors taking medicines, except hormonal medicines, which was associated with significantly lower levels of DNA damage. It might be expected that the comet assay would detect more DNA damage in individuals suffering from infectious diseases (3). Betancourt et al. (27) observed that infections in infants were associated with enhanced frequency of DNA damage. Donors taking antibiotics were expected to have higher level of DNA damage. Higher levels of DNA damage were noted in the leucocytes of malnourished children treated with antibiotics (72). Moreover, the anticancer drugs, idarubicin and mitoxantrone, as well as the antibiotic steptozotocin induced DNA damage in normal lymphocytes (73,74). The antibiotic benzathine penicillin G did not induce DNA damage (75). No genotoxic effects of salinomycin in human nasal mucosa and peripheral blood lymphocytes were observed by Scherzad et al. (76) Our study did not confirm the induction of DNA damage in human leucocytes by antibiotics. A higher level of DNA damage was also noted in women using contraceptives(77) and in patients using antiplaque agents (78). Our donors did not report the name of hormonal medicines; however, these reduced the level of DNA damage. Ghosh et al. (79) observed that dexomethosone, deriphyline and furosemide can induce significant DNA damage in human peripheral blood lymphocytes, whereas acetozolamide, ibuprofen and nifedipine showed no genotoxic effect. Metformin (an antihyperglycemic agent) can protect against oxidant-induced DNA damage in lymphocytes from elderly subjects (80). Some medicines or vitamins may have antioxidant properties, so they can prevent or reduce DNA damage. This may indirectly explain why the oldest donors had lower DNA damage. It might be speculated that it is because they take more medicines. The results of our study might be also explained by the occasional taking of medicines by our donors, who were healthy at the moment of donation and free from chronic diseases. Antiallergic medicines showed non-significantly reduced DNA damage in the present study. Although dexamethasone, which induced significant DNA damage, may be used against allergies, other antiallergic medications, which for example have also anti-inflammatory properties, may reduce DNA damage. Our study showed a non-significant difference between alcohol drinkers and abstainers. This may be because donors declared small or moderate consumption of alcohol (1–5 bottles of beer or 1–3 glasses of wine per month). Previous studies reported significant association between alcohol consumption and DNA damage in lymphocytes (56,81) or no effect (39,48). A Japanese study showed that alcohol drinking frequency was a significant predictor of DNA damage for subjects with an aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 (ALDH-2)-deficient genotype, but not for subjects with ALDH-2 proficient genotype (82). Frequent alcohol drinking was significantly associated with a reduced level of DNA damage in peripheral blood leucocytes from ALDH-2-deficient male subjects (82). The current study showed that individuals owning domestic pets had lower levels of DNA damage in leucocytes. This observation was robust in multivariate analysis, indicating that it is not confounded by sex, smoking, diagnostic X-ray exposure, alcohol consumption and intake of medicine. Pet ownership may moderate the harmful effects of smoking. The mean level of DNA damage in the group of smoker/pet owner was almost half that of the group of smoker/no pet. No published studies about the impact of pet ownership on the levels of DNA damage in cells of human are known. The beneficial effect of human health induced by pets (zoocyia) was recently described in several papers (83–86). Pets benefit human health mainly in the following ways: as builders of social capital, as agents of harm reduction, as motivators for healthy behaviour change and as potential participants in treatment plans (84). Contact with animals can confer physiological benefits, relieving symptoms of mental and cognitive illness and loneliness (85). The benefits of companion animals are most likely to be through reduction in depression, anxiety and social isolation. Positive relationship showed measurably higher oxytocin with lower cortisol and alpha-amylase levels (86). The current results showed, depending on the post-hoc test used, a statistically significant or non-significant trend that companion animals might also influence DNA integrity. However, it might also be a ‘healthy pet-owner effect’, that is, people who are adversely affected by pets do not have them in their homes. More investigations into the DNA damage of pet owners is needed to highlight our observation, which might be important. Our results showed significant seasonal variation in the level of DNA damage in the leucocytes of blood donors. This finding may also explain higher level of DNA damage in samples with lower numbers (Figure 1) that were taken in the summer. Similar to our results, higher frequencies of DNA strand breaks in the summer were noted by several groups of investigators (42,43,51,87–89). In contrast, other authors observed the highest DNA damage in the winter (35,90,91). Increased frequency of DNA damage may be caused by higher sunlight exposure in the summer. Ultraviolet radiation, which is a component of sunlight, is a known factor inducing DNA damage (19,20,92,93). Sunlight might penetrate the outer layer of the human epidermis leading to the induction of DNA damage in mononuclear cells circulating in the vessels in the skin(88). In conclusion, the current results confirmed very high intra-individual variability between the levels of DNA damage in human leucocytes and significant seasonal variation. The significant factors that influence the DNA damage in the white blood cells of healthy blood donors are aged over 30 years, gender and smoking habit, especially in men and in heavy smokers. Lower levels of DNA damage were found in the leucocytes of pet owners, suggesting the tendency towards a beneficial effect of such company, but further investigations are necessary to confirm this. Acknowledgements The authors thank Marcin Falkowski (Sydney, Australia) for language consultations as a native English speaker. The excellent technical assistance of Izabela Remiszewska and Anna Sawicka is greatly appreciated. Conflict of interest statement: None declared. References 1. Singh, N. P., McCoy, M. T., Tice, R. R. and Schneider, E. L. ( 1988) A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Exp. Cell Res ., 175, 184– 191. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 2. Collins, A. R., Oscoz, A. A., Brunborg, G., Gaivão, I., Giovannelli, L., Kruszewski, M., Smith, C. C. and Stetina, R. ( 2008) The comet assay: topical issues. Mutagenesis , 23, 143– 151. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 3. Møller, P., Knudsen, L. E., Loft, S. and Wallin, H. ( 2000) The comet assay as a rapid test in biomonitoring occupational exposure to DNA-damaging agents and effect of confounding factors. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev ., 9, 1005– 1015. Google Scholar PubMed 4. Møller, P. ( 2006) The alkaline comet assay: towards validation in biomonitoring of DNA damaging exposures. Basic Clin. Pharmacol. Toxicol ., 98, 336– 345. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 5. Collins, A. R. and Azqueta, A. ( 2012) DNA repair as a biomarker in human biomonitoring studies; further applications of the comet assay. Mutat. Res ., 736, 122– 129. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 6. Collins, A., Koppen, G., Valdiglesias, V.,et al. ; ComNet project. ( 2014) The comet assay as a tool for human biomonitoring studies: the ComNet project. Mutat. Res. Rev. Mutat. Res ., 759, 27– 39. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 7. Anderson, D., Dhawan, A. and Laubenthal, J. ( 2013) The comet assay in human biomonitoring. Methods Mol. Biol ., 1044, 347– 362. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 8. Corte′s-Gutierrez, E., Hernandez-Garza, F., Garcıa-Perez, J., Davila-Rodrıguez, M., Aguado-Barrera, M. and Cerda-Flores, R. ( 2012) Evaluation of DNA single and double strand breaks in women with cervical neoplasia based on alkaline and neutral comet assay techniques. J. Biomed. Biotechnol ., 2012, 7. 9. Aycicek, A., Kocyigit, A., Erel, O. and Senturk, H. ( 2008) Phototherapy causes DNA damage in peripheral mononuclear leukocytes in term infants. J. Pediatr. (Rio. J) ., 84, 141– 146. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 10. Dodani, K., Anumala, N., Avula, H., Reddy, K., Varre, S., Kalakonda, B. B., Arora, N., Suri, C. and Avula, J. K. ( 2012) Periodontal findings in patients with oral submucous fibrosis and comet assay of affected gingival epithelial cells. J. Periodontol ., 83, 1038– 1047. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 11. McKenna, D. J., McKeown, S. R. and McKelvey-Martin, V. J. ( 2008) Potential use of the comet assay in the clinical management of cancer. Mutagenesis , 23, 183– 190. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 12. Dobrzyńska, M. M., Pachocki, K. A., Gajowik, A., Radzikowska, J. and Sackiewicz, A. ( 2014) The effect occupational exposure to ionizing radiation on the DNA damage in peripheral blood leukocytes of nuclear medicine personnel. J. Occup. Health , 56, 379– 386. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 13. Apostolou, P., Toloudi, M., Kourtidou, E., Mimikakou, G., Vlachou, I., Chatziioannou, M. and Papasotiriou, I. ( 2014) Use of the comet assay technique for quick and reliable prediction of in vitro response to chemotherapeutics in breast and colon cancer. J. Biol. Res. (Thessalon) ., 21, 14. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 14. Hartmann, A., Herkommer, K., Glück, M. and Speit, G. ( 1995) DNA-damaging effect of cyclophosphamide on human blood cells in vivo and in vitro studied with the single-cell gel test (comet assay). Environ. Mol. Mutagen ., 25, 180– 187. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 15. Kumaravel, T. S. and Jha, A. N. ( 2006) Reliable Comet assay measurements for detecting DNA damage induced by ionising radiation and chemicals. Mutat. Res ., 605, 7– 16. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 16. Binková, B., Lewtas, J., Mísková, I.,et al. ( 1996) Biomarker studies in northern Bohemia. Environ. Health Perspect ., 104( Suppl 3), 591– 597. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 17. Valverde, M., del Carmen López, M., López, I., Sánchez, I., Fortoul, T. I., Ostrosky-Wegman, P. and Rojas, E. ( 1997) DNA damage in leukocytes and buccal and nasal epithelial cells of individuals exposed to air pollution in Mexico City. Environ. Mol. Mutagen ., 30, 147– 152. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 18. Singh, N. P., Graham, M. M., Singh, V. and Khan, A. ( 1995) Induction of DNA single-strand breaks in human lymphocytes by low doses of gamma-rays. Int. J. Radiat. Biol ., 68, 563– 569. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 19. Osipov, A. N., Smetanina, N. M., Pustovalova, M. V., Arkhangelskaya, E. and Klokov, D. ( 2014) The formation of DNA single-strand breaks and alkali-labile sites in human blood lymphocytes exposed to 365-nm UVA radiation. Free Radic. Biol. Med ., 73, 34– 40. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 20. Malkova, A., Kohlerova, R., Fiala, Z., Hamakova, K., Selke-Krulichova, I. and Borska, L. ( 2016) Genotoxic changes in peripheral lymphocytes after therapeutic exposure to crude coal tar and ultraviolet radiation. Biomed. Pap. Med. Fac. Univ. Palacky. Olomouc. Czech. Repub ., 160, 553– 558. Google Scholar PubMed 21. Soares, J. P., Silva, A. M., Oliveira, M. M., Peixoto, F., Gaivão, I. and Mota, M. P. ( 2015) Effects of combined physical exercise training on DNA damage and repair capacity: role of oxidative stress changes. Age (Dordr) ., 37, 9799. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 22. Esteves, F., Teixeira, E., Amorim, T., Costa, C., Pereira, C., Fraga S., De Andrade, V.M., Texeira, J.P. and Costa, S. ( 2017) Assessment of DNA damage in a group of professional dancers during a 10-month dancing season. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A , 2017 [Epub ahead of print]. 23. Dhawan, A., Mathur, N. and Seth, P. K. ( 2001) The effect of smoking and eating habits on DNA damage in Indian population as measured in the Comet assay. Mutat. Res ., 474, 121– 128. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 24. Lee, M. Y., Kim, H. A. and Kang, M. H. ( 2017) Comparison of lymphocyte DNA damage levels and total antioxidant capacity in Korean and American diet. Nutr. Res. Pract ., 11, 33– 42. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 25. Singh, N. P., Danner, D. B., Tice, R. R., Pearson, J. D., Brant, L. J., Morrell, C. H. and Schneider, E. L. ( 1991) Basal DNA damage in individual human lymphocytes with age. Mutat. Res ., 256, 1– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 26. Rojas, E., Valverde, M., Sordo, M. and Ostrosky-Wegman, P. ( 1996) DNA damage in exfoliated buccal cells of smokers assessed by the single cell gel electrophoresis assay. Mutat. Res ., 370, 115– 120. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 27. Betancourt, M., Ortiz, R., González, C., Pérez, P., Cortés, L., Rodríguez, L. and Villaseñor, L. ( 1995) Assessment of DNA damage in leukocytes from infected and malnourished children by single cell gel electrophoresis/comet assay. Mutat. Res ., 331, 65– 77. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 28. Mecocci, P., Polidori, M. C., Cherubini, A.,et al. ( 2002) Lymphocyte oxidative DNA damage and plasma antioxidants in Alzheimer disease. Arch. Neurol ., 59, 794– 798. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 29. Sanders, L. H., McCoy, J., Hu, X., Mastroberardino, P. G., Dickinson, B. C., Chang, C. J., Chu, C. T., Van Houten, B. and Greenamyre, J. T. ( 2014) Mitochondrial DNA damage: molecular marker of vulnerable nigral neurons in Parkinson’s disease. Neurobiol. Dis ., 70, 214– 223. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 30. Dobrzyńska, M.M. ( 2007) Assessment of DNA damage in multiple organs from mice exposed to X-rays or acrylamide or a combination of both using the comet assay. In Vivo , 21, 657– 62. Google Scholar PubMed 31. Bausinger, J. and Speit, G. ( 2016) The impact of lymphocyte isolation on induced DNA damage in human blood samples measured by the comet assay. Mutagenesis , 31, 567– 572. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 32. Betti, C., Davini, T., Giannessi, L., Loprieno, N. and Barale, R. ( 1994) Microgel electrophoresis assay (comet test) and SCE analysis in human lymphocytes from 100 normal subjects. Mutat. Res ., 307, 323– 333. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 33. Morillas, M. J., Guillamet, E., Surrallés, J., Creus, A. and Marcos, R. ( 2002) Spontaneous and induced genetic damage in T lymphocyte subsets evaluated by the Comet assay. Mutat. Res ., 514, 39– 48. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 34. Speit, G., Witton-Davies, T., Heepchantree, W., Trenz, K. and Hoffmann, H. ( 2003) Investigations on the effect of cigarette smoking in the comet assay. Mutat. Res ., 542, 33– 42. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 35. Kopjar, N., Zeljezić, D. and Garaj-Vrhovac, V. ( 2006) Evaluation of DNA damage in white blood cells of healthy human volunteers using the alkaline comet assay and the chromosome aberration test. Acta Biochim. Pol ., 53, 321– 336. Google Scholar PubMed 36. Maluf, S. W., Passos, D. F., Bacelar, A., Speit, G. and Erdtmann, B. ( 2001) Assessment of DNA damage in lymphocytes of workers exposed to X-radiation using the micronucleus test and the comet assay. Environ. Mol. Mutagen ., 38, 311– 315. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 37. Hoffmann, H. and Speit, G. ( 2005) Assessment of DNA damage in peripheral blood of heavy smokers with the comet assay and the micronucleus test. Mutat. Res ., 581, 105– 114. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 38. Touil, N., Aka, P. V., Buchet, J. P., Thierens, H. and Kirsch-Volders, M. ( 2002) Assessment of genotoxic effects related to chronic low level exposure to ionizing radiation using biomarkers for DNA damage and repair. Mutagenesis , 17, 223– 232. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 39. Fracasso, M. E., Perbellini, L., Soldà, S., Talamini, G. and Franceschetti, P. ( 2002) Lead induced DNA strand breaks in lymphocytes of exposed workers: role of reactive oxygen species and protein kinase C. Mutat. Res ., 515, 159– 169. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 40. Undeğer, U., Zorlu, A. F. and Başaran, N. ( 1999) Use of the alkaline comet assay to monitor DNA damage in technicians exposed to low-dose radiation. J. Occup. Environ. Med ., 41, 693– 698. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 41. Maluf, S. W. and Erdtmann, B. ( 2000) Follow-up study of the genetic damage in lymphocytes of pharmacists and nurses handling antineoplastic drugs evaluated by cytokinesis-block micronuclei analysis and single cell gel electrophoresis assay. Mutat. Res ., 471, 21– 27. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 42. Betti, C., Davini, T., Giannessi, L., Loprieno, N. and Barale, R. ( 1995) Comparative studies by comet test and SCE analysis in human lymphocytes from 200 healthy subjects. Mutat. Res ., 343, 201– 207. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 43. Frenzilli, G., Betti, C., Davini, T., Desideri, M., Fornai, E., Giannessi, L., Maggiorelli, F., Paoletti, P. and Barale, R. ( 1997) Evaluation of DNA damage in leukocytes of ex-smokers by single cell gel electrophoresis. Mutat. Res ., 375, 117– 123. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 44. Anderson, D., Yu, T. W., Phillips, B. J. and Schmezer, P. ( 1994) The effect of various antioxidants and other modifying agents on oxygen-radical-generated DNA damage in human lymphocytes in the COMET assay. Mutat. Res ., 307, 261– 271. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 45. Ellahueñe, M. F., Pérez-Alzola, L. P., Farfán-Urzua, M., González-Hormazabal, P., Garay, M., Olmedo, M. I. and Last, J. A. ( 2004) Preliminary evaluation of DNA damage related with the smoking habit measured by the comet assay in whole blood cells. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev ., 13, 1223– 1229. Google Scholar PubMed 46. Sardaş, S., Aygün, N. and Karakaya, A. E. ( 1997) Genotoxicity studies on professional hair colorists exposed to oxidation hair dyes. Mutat. Res ., 394, 153– 161. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 47. Piperakis, S. M., Visvardis, E. E., Sagnou, M. and Tassiou, A. M. ( 1998) Effects of smoking and aging on oxidative DNA damage of human lymphocytes. Carcinogenesis , 19, 695– 698. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 48. Lee, J., Lee, E., Oh, E., Lee, J., Sul, D. and Kim, J. ( 2007)[ Increased DNA damage of lymphocytes in Korean male smokers]. J. Prev. Med. Public Health , 40, 16– 22. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 49. Fracasso, M. E., Doria, D., Franceschetti, P., Perbellini, L. and Romeo, L. ( 2006) DNA damage and repair capacity by comet assay in lymphocytes of white-collar active smokers and passive smokers (non- and ex-smokers) at workplace. Toxicol. Lett ., 167, 131– 141. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 50. Singh, N. P., Danner, D. B., Tice, R. R., Brant, L. and Schneider, E. L. ( 1990) DNA damage and repair with age in individual human lymphocytes. Mutat. Res ., 237, 123– 130. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 51. Møller, P., Knudsen, L. E., Frentz, G., Dybdahl, M., Wallin, H. and Nexø, B. A. ( 1998) Seasonal variation of DNA damage and repair in patients with non-melanoma skin cancer and referents with and without psoriasis. Mutat. Res ., 407, 25– 34. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 52. Holz, O., Jörres, R., Kästner, A., Krause, T. and Magnussen, H. ( 1995) Reproducibility of basal and induced DNA single-strand breaks detected by the single-cell gel electrophoresis assay in human peripheral mononuclear leukocytes. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health , 67, 305– 310. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 53. Srám, R. J., Podrazilová, K., Dejmek, J., Mracková, G. and Pilcík, T. ( 1998) Single cell gel electrophoresis assay: sensitivity of peripheral white blood cells in human population studies. Mutagenesis , 13, 99– 103. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 54. Anderson, D., Phillips, B. J., Yu, T. W., Edwards, A. J., Ayesh, R. and Butterworth, K. R. ( 1997) The effects of vitamin C supplementation on biomarkers of oxygen radical generated damage in human volunteers with “low” or “high” cholesterol levels. Environ. Mol. Mutagen ., 30, 161– 174. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 55. Grover, P., Danadevi, K., Mahboob, M., Rozati, R., Banu, B. S. and Rahman, M. F. ( 2003) Evaluation of genetic damage in workers employed in pesticide production utilizing the Comet assay. Mutagenesis , 18, 201– 205. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 56. Løhr, M., Jensen, A., Eriksen, L., Grønbæk, M., Loft, S. and Møller, P. ( 2015) Age and metabolic risk factors associated with oxidatively damaged DNA in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Oncotarget , 6, 2641– 2653. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 57. Gorbunova, V., Seluanov, A., Mao, Z. and Hine, C. ( 2007) Changes in DNA repair during aging. Nucleic Acids Res ., 35, 7466– 7474. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 58. Best, B. P. ( 2009) Nuclear DNA damage as a direct cause of aging. Rejuvenation Res ., 12, 199– 208. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 59. Soares, J. P., Cortinhas, A., Bento, T., Leitão, J. C., Collins, A. R., Gaivão, I. and Mota, M. P. ( 2014) Aging and DNA damage in humans: a meta‐analysis study. Aging (Albany. NY) ., 6, 432– 439. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 60. Wilson, D. M. 3rd, Bohr, V. A. and McKinnon, P. J. ( 2008) DNA damage, DNA repair, ageing and age-related disease. Mech. Ageing Dev ., 129, 349– 352. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 61. Wang, A. L., Lukas, T. J., Yuan, M. and Neufeld, A. H. ( 2010) Age-related increase in mitochondrial DNA damage and loss of DNA repair capacity in the neural retina. Neurobiol. Aging , 31, 2002– 2010. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 62. Rattan, S. I. ( 2006) Theories of biological aging: genes, proteins, and free radicals. Free Radic. Res ., 40, 1230– 1238. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 63. Cooke, M. S., Loft, S., Olinski, R.,et al. ( 2010) Recommendations for standardized description of and nomenclature concerning oxidatively damaged nucleobases in DNA. Chem. Res. Toxicol ., 23, 705– 707. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 64. Szaflik, J. P., Janik-Papis, K., Synowiec, E., Ksiazek, D., Zaras, M., Wozniak, K., Szaflik, J. and Blasiak, J. ( 2009) DNA damage and repair in age-related macular degeneration. Mutat. Res ., 669, 169– 176. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 65. Schumacher, B., Garinis, G. A. and Hoeijmakers, J. H. ( 2008) Age to survive: DNA damage and aging. Trends Genet ., 24, 77– 85. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 66. Hoeijmakers, J. H. ( 2009) DNA damage, aging, and cancer. N. Engl. J. Med ., 361, 1475– 1485. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 67. Fenech, M. and Bonassi, S. ( 2011) The effect of age, gender, diet and lifestyle on DNA damage measured using micronucleus frequency in human peripheral blood lymphocytes. Mutagenesis , 26, 43– 49. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 68. Freitas, A. A. and de Magalhães, J. P. ( 2011) A review and appraisal of the DNA damage theory of ageing. Mutat. Res ., 728, 12– 22. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 69. Soares, J. P., Silva, A. M., Fonseca, S., Oliveira, M. M., Peixoto, F., Gaivão, I. and Mota, M. P. ( 2015) How can age and lifestyle variables affect DNA damage, repair capacity and endogenous biomarkers of oxidative stress? Exp. Gerontol ., 62, 45– 52. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 70. Lam, T. H., Zhu, C. Q. and Jiang, C. Q. ( 2002) Lymphocyte DNA damage in elevator manufacturing workers in Guangzhou, China. Mutat. Res ., 515, 147– 157. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 71. Bajpayee, M., Dhawan, A., Parmar, D., Pandey, A. K., Mathur, N. and Seth, P. K. ( 2002) Gender-related differences in basal DNA damage in lymphocytes of a healthy Indian population using the alkaline Comet assay. Mutat. Res ., 520, 83– 91. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 72. González, C., Nájera, O., Cortés, E., Toledo, G., López, L., Betancourt, M. and Ortiz, R. ( 2002) Susceptibility to DNA damage induced by antibiotics in lymphocytes from malnourished children. Teratog. Carcinog. Mutagen ., 22, 147– 158. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 73. Błasiak, J., Gloc, E. and Warszawski, M. ( 2002) A comparison of the in vitro genotoxicity of anticancer drugs idarubicin and mitoxantrone. Acta Biochim. Pol ., 49, 145– 155. Google Scholar PubMed 74. Błasiak, J., Sikora, A., Wozniak, K. and Drzewoski, J. ( 2004) Genotoxicity of streptozotocin in normal and cancer cells and its modulation by free radical scavengers. Cell Biol. Toxicol ., 20, 83– 96. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 75. Köseoglu, V., Kismet, E., Soysal, Y., Ulucan, H., Dündaröz, R., Imirzalioglu, N., Imirzahoglu, N. and Gökçay, E. ( 2004) Investigation of DNA damage in lymphocytes exposed to benzathine penicillin G. Pediatr. Int ., 46, 415– 418. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 76. Scherzad, A., Hackenberg, S., Schramm, C., Froelich, K., Ginzkey, C., Hagen, R. and Kleinsasser, N. ( 2015) Geno- and cytotoxicity of salinomycin in human nasal mucosa and peripheral blood lymphocytes. Toxicol. In Vitro , 29, 813– 818. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 77. Biri, A., Civelek, E., Karahalil, B. and Sardaş, S. ( 2002) Assessment of DNA damage in women using oral contraceptives. Mutat. Res ., 521, 113– 119. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 78. Eren, K., Ozmeriç, N. and Sardaş, S. ( 2002) Monitoring of buccal epithelial cells by alkaline comet assay (single cell gel electrophoresis technique) in cytogenetic evaluation of chlorhexidine. Clin. Oral Investig ., 6, 150– 154. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 79. Ghosh, M., Biswas, D. and Mukherjee, A. ( 2010) High-altitude medicines: a short-term genotoxicity study. Toxicol. Ind. Health , 26, 417– 424. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 80. Kanigür-Sultuybek, G., Ozdas, S. B., Curgunlu, A., Tezcan, V. and Onaran, I. ( 2007) Does metformin prevent short-term oxidant-induced DNA damage? In vitro study on lymphocytes from aged subjects. J. Basic Clin. Physiol. Pharmacol ., 18, 129– 140. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 81. Zhu, C. Q., Lam, T. H., Jiang, C. Q., Wei, B. X., Xu, Q. R. and Chen, Y. H. ( 2000) Increased lymphocyte DNA strand breaks in rubber workers. Mutat. Res ., 470, 201– 209. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 82. Lu, Y. and Morimoto, K. ( 2009) Is habitual alcohol drinking associated with reduced electrophoretic DNA migration in peripheral blood leukocytes from ALDH2-deficient male Japanese? Mutagenesis , 24, 303– 308. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 83. Hodgson, K., Barton, L., Darling, M., Antao, V., Kim, F. A. and Monavvari, A. ( 2015) Pets’ impact on your patients’ health: leveraging benefits and mitigating risk. J. Am. Board Fam. Med ., 28, 526– 534. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 84. Burres, S., Edwards, N.E., Beck, A.M., Richards, E. ( 2016) Incorporating pets into acute inpatient rehabilitation: a case study. Rehabil. Nurs ., [Epub ahead of print]. 85. Cherniack, E. P. and Cherniack, A. R. ( 2015) Assessing the benefits and risks of owning a pet. CMAJ , 187, 715– 716. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 86. Schreiner, P.J. ( 2016) Emerging cardiovascular risk research: impact of pets on cardiovascular risk prevention. Curr. Cardiovasc. Risk. Rep ., 10, 1– 12. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 87. Topinka, J., Binková, B., Mracková, G., Stávková, Z., Benes, I., Dejmek, J., Lenícek, J. and Srám, R. J. ( 1997) DNA adducts in human placenta as related to air pollution and to GSTM1 genotype. Mutat. Res ., 390, 59– 68. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 88. Moller, P., Wallin, H., Holst, E. and Knudsen, L. E. ( 2002) Sunlight-induced DNA damage in human mononuclear cells. FASEB J ., 16, 45– 53. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 89. Verschaeve, L., Koppen, G., Gorp, U. V., Schoeters, G., Jacobs, G. and Zwijzen, C. ( 2007) Seasonal variations in spontaneous levels of DNA damage; implication in the risk assessment of environmental chemicals. J. Appl. Toxicol ., 27, 612– 620. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 90. Perera, F.P., Hemminki, K., Gryzbowska, E.et al. ( 1992) Molecular and genetic damage in human from environmental pollution in Poland. Nature , 360, 256– 258. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 91. Sram, R.J., Benes, I., Binkova, B.et al. ( 1996) Teplice program – the impact of air pollution on human health. Environ. Health Perspect ., 104( Suppl 4), 699– 714. Google Scholar PubMed 92. Smetanina, N. M., Pustovalova, M. V. and Osipov, A. N. ( 2014)[ Effect of dimethyl sulfoxide on the extent of DNA single-strand breaks and alkali-labile sites induced by 365 nm UV-radiation in human blood lymphocyte nucleoids]. Radiats. Biol. Radioecol ., 54, 169– 173. Google Scholar PubMed 93. Aristatile, B., Al-Numair, K. S., Al-Assaf, A. H., Veeramani, C. and Pugalendi, K. V. ( 2015) Protective effect of carvacrol on oxidative stress and cellular DNA damage induced by UVB irradiation in human peripheral lymphocytes. J. Biochem. Mol. Toxicol ., 29, 497– 507. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the UK Environmental Mutagen Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: email@example.com.
Mutagenesis – Oxford University Press
Published: Jan 1, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud