Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the extent of DNA damage in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and the influence of glycemic variability on DNA damage.

Method: The study involved 50 patients under the age of 18 with type 1 diabetes and 21 healthy control individuals. The Medtronic iProTM2 Enlite Glucose Sensor® was implanted, and continuous glucose monitoring metrics were calculated, including standard deviation, glucose management indicator, coefficient of variation, time in range, time below range, and time above range. Blood samples were also taken to assess DNA damage and HbA1c levels.

Results: The mean age of children with type 1 diabetes was 13.69±2.99 years, and the male-to-female ratio was 30:20. DNA damage was found to be similar in patients with type 1 DM and in a healthy control group. However, among children with type 1 diabetes mellitus, head length, a measure of undamaged DNA, was significantly higher in patients with good glycemic control (HbA1c≤7.5%) than in those with poor glycemic control (HbA1c>7.5%). A positive correlation was observed between DNA damage parameters and % coefficient of variation, a marker of glycemic variability.

Conclusion: The correlation between the coefficient of variation and DNA damage demonstrates the critical importance of maintaining consistent glycemic management in diabetes.

Keywords: DNA damage, glycemic variability, type 1 diabetes

Copyright and license

How to cite

Gökmen G, Kılıç-Erkek Ö, Tunç-Ata M, Altıncık SA, Kılıç-Toprak E, Küçükatay V, et al. The effect of glycemic variability on DNA damage in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Trends in Pediatrics. 2024;5(2):25-32. https://doi.org/10.59213/TP.2024.114


  1. American Diabetes Association. 13. Children and Adolescents: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:S148-64. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-S013
  2. Libman I, Haynes A, Lyons S, et al. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2022: Definition, epidemiology, and classification of diabetes in children and adolescents. Pediatr Diabetes. 2022;23:1160-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/pedi.13454
  3. Bjornstad P, Dart A, Donaghue KC, et al. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2022: Microvascular and macrovascular complications in children and adolescents with diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2022;23:1432-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/pedi.13444
  4. Rama Chandran S, Tay WL, Lye WK, et al. Beyond HbA1c: Comparing Glycemic Variability and Glycemic Indices in Predicting Hypoglycemia in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20:353-62. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2017.0388
  5. Ceriello A, Monnier L, Owens D. Glycaemic variability in diabetes: clinical and therapeutic implications. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7:221-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30136-0
  6. Šoupal J, Škrha J, Fajmon M, et al. Glycemic variability is higher in type 1 diabetes patients with microvascular complications irrespective of glycemic control. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2014;16:198-203. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2013.0205
  7. Chatziralli IP. The Role of Glycemic Control and Variability in Diabetic Retinopathy. Diabetes Ther. 2018;9:431-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-017-0345-5
  8. Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, et al. Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:1593-603. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci19-0028
  9. Rostoka E, Salna I, Dekante A, et al. DNA damage in leukocytes and serum nitrite concentration are negatively associated in type 1 diabetes. Mutagenesis. 2021;36:213-22. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/geab015
  10. Pácal L, Varvařovská J, Rušavý Z, et al. Parameters of oxidative stress, DNA damage and DNA repair in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Arch Physiol Biochem. 2011;117:222-30. https://doi.org/10.3109/13813455.2010.551135
  11. Dinçer Y, Akçay T, Ilkova H, Alademir Z, Ozbay G. DNA damage and antioxidant defense in peripheral leukocytes of patients with Type I diabetes mellitus. Mutat Res. 2003;527:49-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0027-5107(03)00073-3
  12. Saisho Y. Glycemic variability and oxidative stress: a link between diabetes and cardiovascular disease? Int J Mol Sci. 2014;15:18381-406. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms151018381
  13. Monnier L, Mas E, Ginet C, et al. Activation of oxidative stress by acute glucose fluctuations compared with sustained chronic hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. JAMA. 2006;295:1681-7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.14.1681
  14. Colomo N, López-Siguero JP, Leiva I, et al. Relationship between glucose control, glycemic variability, and oxidative stress in children with type 1 diabetes. Endocrinol Diabetes Nutr (Engl Ed). 2019;66:540-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.endinu.2018.12.010
  15. Wu D, Gong CX, Meng X, Yang QL. Correlation between blood glucose fluctuations and activation of oxidative stress in type 1 diabetic children during the acute metabolic disturbance period. Chin Med J (Engl). 2013;126:4019-22.
  16. Lodovici M, Giovannelli L, Pitozzi V, Bigagli E, Bardini G, Rotella CM. Oxidative DNA damage and plasma antioxidant capacity in type 2 diabetic patients with good and poor glycaemic control. Mutat Res. 2008;638:98-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2007.09.002
  17. Singh NP, Stephens RE, Schneider EL. Modifications of alkaline microgel electrophoresis for sensitive detection of DNA damage. Int J Radiat Biol. 1994;66:23-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553009414550911
  18. Nandhakumar S, Parasuraman S, Shanmugam MM, Rao KR, Chand P, Bhat BV. Evaluation of DNA damage using single-cell gel electrophoresis (Comet Assay). J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2011;2:107-11. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-500X.81903
  19. Chiang JL, Kirkman MS, Laffel LM, Peters AL; Type 1 Diabetes Sourcebook Authors. Type 1 diabetes through the life span: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2014;37:2034-54. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc14-1140
  20. Visvardis EE, Tassiou AM, Piperakis SM. Study of DNA damage induction and repair capacity of fresh and cryopreserved lymphocytes exposed to H2O2 and gamma-irradiation with the alkaline comet assay. Mutat Res. 1997;383:71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8777(96)00047-x
  21. Quagliaro L, Piconi L, Assaloni R, Martinelli L, Motz E, Ceriello A. Intermittent high glucose enhances apoptosis related to oxidative stress in human umbilical vein endothelial cells: the role of protein kinase C and NAD(P)H-oxidase activation. Diabetes. 2003;52:2795-804. https://doi.org/10.2337/diabetes.52.11.2795
  22. Kulkarni A, Das KC. Differential roles of ATR and ATM in p53, Chk1, and histone H2AX phosphorylation in response to hyperoxia: ATR-dependent ATM activation. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2008;294:L998-1006. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajplung.00004.2008
  23. Liu B, Chen Y, St Clair DK. ROS and p53: a versatile partnership. Free Radic Biol Med. 2008;44:1529-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2008.01.011
  24. Ceriello A, Ihnat MA, Thorpe JE. Clinical review 2: The “metabolic memory”: is more than just tight glucose control necessary to prevent diabetic complications? J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;94:410-5. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2008-1824
  25. Schisano B, Tripathi G, McGee K, McTernan PG, Ceriello A. Glucose oscillations, more than constant high glucose, induce p53 activation and a metabolic memory in human endothelial cells. Diabetologia. 2011;54:1219-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-011-2049-0
  26. Mahmoud HM, Altimimi DJ. Evaluation of DNA Damage in Type 1 Diabetes Patients. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2019;13:4-6. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2019/39851.12823
  27. Hannon-Fletcher MP, O’Kane MJ, Moles KW, Weatherup C, Barnett CR, Barnett YA. Levels of peripheral blood cell DNA damage in insulin dependent diabetes mellitus human subjects. Mutat Res. 2000;460:53-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8777(00)00013-6
  28. Collins AR, Raslová K, Somorovská M, et al. DNA damage in diabetes: correlation with a clinical marker. Free Radic Biol Med. 1998;25:373-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0891-5849(98)00053-7
  29. Ibarra-Costilla E, Cerda-Flores RM, Dávila-Rodríguez MI, Samayo-Reyes A, Calzado-Flores C, Cortés-Gutiérrez EI. DNA damage evaluated by comet assay in Mexican patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Acta Diabetol. 2010;47(Suppl 1):111-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-009-0149-9
  30. Anderson D, Yu TW, Wright J, Ioannides C. An examination of DNA strand breakage in the comet assay and antioxidant capacity in diabetic patients. Mutat Res. 1998;398:151-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0027-5107(97)00271-6
  31. Varvarovská J, Racek J, Stetina R, et al. Aspects of oxidative stress in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Biomed Pharmacother. 2004;58:539-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2004.09.011
  32. Piperakis SM, Kontogianni K, Karanastasi G, Iakovidou-Kritsi Z, Piperakis MM. The use of comet assay in measuring DNA damage and repair efficiency in child, adult, and old age populations. Cell Biol Toxicol. 2009;25:65-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10565-007-9046-6
  33. Sauvaigo S, Bonnet-Duquennoy M, Odin F, et al. DNA repair capacities of cutaneous fibroblasts: effect of sun exposure, age and smoking on response to an acute oxidative stress. Br J Dermatol. 2007;157:26-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2007.07890.x