4.2 Article

Single-cell transcriptome conservation in a comparative analysis of fresh and cryopreserved human skin tissue: pilot in localized scleroderma

Journal

ARTHRITIS RESEARCH & THERAPY
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13075-020-02343-4

Keywords

Localized scleroderma; Morphea; Single-cell RNA sequencing; Pediatric rheumatology; Cryopreservation; Transcriptome expression

Categories

Funding

  1. Nancy Taylor Foundation for Chronic Diseases, Inc.
  2. Scleroderma Foundation
  3. National Institutes of Health [5P50AR060780 -07]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The purpose of this study was to assess variability in cell composition and cell-specific gene expression in the skin of patients with localized scleroderma (LS) utilizing CryoStor (R) CS10 in comparison to RPMI to produce adequate preservation of tissue samples and cell types of interest for use in large-scale multi-institutional collaborations studying localized scleroderma and other skin disorders. Methods We performed single-cell RNA sequencing on paired skin biopsy specimens from 3 patients with LS. Each patient with one sample cryopreserved in CryoStor (R) CS10 and one fresh in RPMI media using 10x Genomics sequencing. Results Levels of cell viability and yield were comparable between CryoStor (R) CS10 (frozen) and RPMI (fresh) preserved cells. Furthermore, gene expression between preservation methods was collectively significantly correlated and conserved across all 18 identified cell cluster populations. Conclusion Comparable cell population and transcript expression yields between CryoStor (R) CS10 and RPMI preserved cells support the utilization of cryopreserved skin tissue in single-cell analysis. This suggests that employing standardized cryopreservation protocols for the skin tissue will help facilitate multi-site collaborations looking to identify mechanisms of disease in disorders characterized by cutaneous pathology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available