ArticleScientific reports2019
Identification of an optimal method for extracting RNA from human skin biopsy, using domestic pig as a model system.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hair follicle gene expression profiling in the SubPopulations and InteRmediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS).BMC medical genomics · 2025Article
- Impact of soft tissue homogenization methods on RNA quality.Molecular biology reports · 2025Article
- Comparing RNA extraction methods to face the variations in RNA quality using two human biological matrices.Molecular biology reports · 2023Article
- First virological and pathological study of Göttingen Minipigs with Dippity Pig Syndrome (DPS).PloS one · 2023Article
- Quality parameters for RNA preparations from biopsies of ulcerated human skin.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- Optimization of RNA extraction methods from human metabolic tissue samples of the COMET biobank.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Qualitative and quantitative analysis ofChinese herbal medicines · 2021Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate skin tissue gene expression patterns correctly, extracting sufficient quantities of good quality RNA is essential. However, RNA extraction from skin tissue is challenging, as the hyaluronic acid-collagen matrix is extremely difficult to homogenize. Although there are multiple ways to extract RNA from skin, there are no comparative studies that identify the most critical steps, e.g. sample collection, storage and homogenization. We analysed the various steps involved in RNA extraction (i.e. biopsy collection as dry biopsy or into nucleotide stabilizing reagents, different storage conditions, enzymatic digestion, stator-rotor and bead motion-based homogenizing combined with column-based RNA purification). We hypothesised that domestic pig skin is applicable as a model for human skin studies. Altogether twenty different workflows were tested on pig skin and the four most promising workflows were tested on human skin samples. The optimal strategy for extracting human skin RNA was to collect, store and homogenize the sample in RLT lysis buffer from the RNeasy Fibrous Tissue Kit combined with beta-mercaptoethanol. Both stator-rotor and bead motion-based homogenizing were found to result in high quality and quantity of extracted RNA. Our results confirmed that domestic pig skin can be successfully used as a model for human skin RNA studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.