4.7 Article

Profiling the Atopic Dermatitis Epidermal Transcriptome by Tape Stripping and BRB-seq

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23116140

关键词

tape stripping; atopic dermatitis; epidermis; transcriptome; BRB-seq

资金

  1. LEO Pharma A/S

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used BRB-seq technique to analyze the transcriptome of tape-stripped skin samples from atopic dermatitis patients and healthy controls. An AD signature consisting of genes related to skin barrier and inflammatory response was identified. However, the low and highly variable transcript counts in tape-stripped samples were a limiting factor for epidermal transcriptome profiling.
Tape stripping is a non-invasive skin sampling technique, which has recently gained use for the study of the transcriptome of atopic dermatitis (AD), a common inflammatory skin disorder characterized by a defective epidermal barrier and perturbated immune response. Here, we performed BRB-seq-a low cost, multiplex-based, transcriptomic profiling technique-on tape-stripped skin from 30 AD patients and 30 healthy controls to evaluate the methods' ability to assess the epidermal AD transcriptome. An AD signature consisting of 91 differentially expressed genes, specific for skin barrier and inflammatory response, was identified. The gene expression in the outermost layers, stratum corneum and stratum granulosum, of the skin showed highest correlation between tape-stripped skin and matched full-thickness punch biopsies. However, we observed that low and highly variable transcript counts, probably due to low RNA yield and RNA degradation in the tape-stripped skin samples, were a limiting factor for epidermal transcriptome profiling as compared to punch biopsies. We conclude that deep BRB-seq of tape-stripped skin is needed to counteract large between-sample RNA yield variation and highly zero-inflated data in order to apply this protocol for population-wide screening of the epidermal transcriptome in inflammatory skin diseases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据