In vivo alkaline comet assay: Statistical considerations on historical negative and positive control data.

The alkaline comet assay is frequently used as in vivo follow-up test within different regulatory environments to characterize the DNA-damaging potential of different test items. The corresponding OECD Test guideline 489 highlights the importance of statistical analyses and historical control data (HCD) but does not provide detailed procedures. Therefore, the working group "Statistics" of the German-speaking Society for Environmental Mutation Research (GUM) collected HCD from five laboratories and >200 comet assay studies and performed several statistical analyses. Key results included that (I) observed large inter-laboratory effects argue against the use of absolute quality thresholds, (II) > 50% zero values on a slide are considered problematic, due to their influence on slide or animal summary statistics, (III) the type of summarizing measure for single-cell data (e.g., median, arithmetic and geometric mean) may lead to extreme differences in resulting animal tail intensities and study outcome in the HCD. These summarizing values increase the reliability of analysis results by better meeting statistical model assumptions, but at the cost of information loss. Furthermore, the relation between negative and positive control groups in the data set was always satisfactorily (or sufficiently) based on ratio, difference and quantile analyses.

Statistical analysis of in vivo alkaline comet assay data - Comparison of median and geometric mean as centrality measures.

The comet assay is one of the standard tests for evaluating the genotoxic potential of a test item able to detect DNA strand breaks in cells or isolated nuclei from various tissues. The in vivo alkaline comet assay is part of the standard test battery, given in option 2 of the ICH guidance S2 (R1) and a follow-up test in the EFSA framework on genotoxicity testing. The current OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals No. 489 directly affects the statistical analysis of comet data as it suggests using the median per slide and the mean of all medians per animal. However, alternative approaches can be used if scientifically justified. In this work, we demonstrated that the selection of different centrality measures to describe an average value per slide may lead to fundamentally different statistical test results and contradicting interpretations. Our focus was on geometric means and medians per slide for the primary endpoint "tail intensity". We compared both strategies using original and simulated data in different experimental settings incl. a varying number of animals, slides and cells per slide. In general, it turned out that the chosen centrality measure has an immense impact on the final statistical test result.