4.6 Article

Extraction of high-quality epidermal RNA after ammonium thiocyanate-induced dermo-epidermal separation of 4 mm human skin biopsies

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL DERMATOLOGY
卷 18, 期 11, 页码 979-984

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0625.2009.00921.x

关键词

ammonium thiocyanate; dermo-epidermal separation; microarray; RNA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To obtain a separation of the epidermal and dermal compartments to examine compartment specific biological mechanisms in the skin, we incubated 4 mm human skin punch biopsies in ammonium thiocyanate. We wanted to test (i) the histological quality of the dermo-epidermal separation obtained by different incubation times; (ii) the amount and quality of extractable epidermal RNA and (iii) its impact on sample RNA expression profiles assessed by large-scale gene expression microarray analysis in both normal and inflamed skin. At 30-min incubation, the split between dermis and epidermis was not always histologically well-defined (i.e. occurred partly intra-epidermally), but also varied between subjects. Consequently, curettage along the dermal surface of the biopsy was added to the procedure. This modified method resulted in an almost perfect separation of the epidermal and dermal compartments, and satisfactory amounts of high-quality RNA were obtained. Hybridization to Affymetrix HG_U133A 2.0 GeneChips showed that ammonium thiocyanate incubation had a minute effect on gene expression resulting in only one significantly downregulated gene (cystatin E/M). We conclude that epidermis can be reproducibly and almost completely separated from the dermis of 4 mm skin biopsies by 30 min incubation in 3.8% ammonium thiocyanate combined with curettage of the dermal surface, producing high-quality RNA suitable for transcriptional analysis. Our refined method of dermo-epidermal separation will undoubtedly prove valuable in the many different settings, where the epidermal and dermal compartments need to be evaluated separately.

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

4.6
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