4.5 Article

Micro-Raman spectroscopy used to identify and grade human skin pilomatrixoma

期刊

MICROSCOPY RESEARCH AND TECHNIQUE
卷 68, 期 2, 页码 75-79

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jemt.20229

关键词

human skin; pilomatrixoma; Raman; collagen type I; hydroxyapatite; tryptophan; disulfide formation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Raman microspectroscopy was applied to analyze the changes in structural conformation and chemical composition of the mass of human skin pilomatrixoma (PMX). The normal skin dermis, collagen type 1, and hydroxyapatite (HA) were used as control. The excised specimens from two patients diagnosed as a typical PMX were detected, in which one specimen was a soft mass, but the other was a hard mass with somewhat calcified deposits via histopathological examination. The Raman spectrum of normal skin dermis was found to be similar to the Raman spectrum of collagen type 1, confirming that the collagen type I was a predominant component in normal skin dermis. The differences of Raman peak intensity between normal skin dermis and soft or hard PMX mass were obvious at 1,622-1,558, 1,400-1,230, 1,128, 1,000-850, 749, and 509 cm(-1). In particular, the peak at 1,665 cm(-1) assigned to amide I band shifted to 1,655 cm(-1) and the peak at 1,246 cm-1 corresponding to amide III band was reduced in its intensity in hard PMX mass. The significant changes in collagen content and its structural conformation, the higher content of tryptophan, and disulfide formation in PMX masses were markedly evidenced.In addition, the shoulder and weak peak at 960 cm(-1) assigned to the stretching vibration of PO43- of HA also appeared respectively in the Raman spectra of soft and hard PMX masses, suggesting the occurrence of calcification of HA in the PMX tissue, particularly in the hard PMX mass. The result indicates that the micro-Raman spectroscopy may provide a highly sensitive and specific method for identifying normal skin dermis and how it differs in chemical composition from different PMX tissues.

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

4.5
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