Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Evaluation of cultured human dermal- and dermo-epidermal substitutes focusing on extracellular matrix components: Comparison of protein and RNA analysis


Oostendorp, Corien; Meyer, Sarah; Sobrio, Monia; van Arendonk, Joyce; Reichmann, Ernst; Daamen, Willeke F; van Kuppevelt, Toin H (2017). Evaluation of cultured human dermal- and dermo-epidermal substitutes focusing on extracellular matrix components: Comparison of protein and RNA analysis. Burns, 43(3):520-530.

Abstract

Treatment of full-thickness skin defects with split-thickness skin grafts is generally associated with contraction and scar formation and cellular skin substitutes have been developed to improve skin regeneration. The evaluation of cultured skin substitutes is generally based on qualitative parameters focusing on histology. In this study we focused on quantitative evaluation to provide a template for comparison of human bio-engineered skin substitutes between clinical and/or research centers, and to supplement histological data. We focused on extracellular matrix proteins since these components play an important role in skin regeneration. As a model we analyzed the human dermal substitute denovoDerm and the dermo-epidermal skin substitute denovoSkin. The quantification of the extracellular matrix proteins type III collagen and laminin 5 in tissue homogenates using western blotting analysis and ELISA was not successful. The same was true for assaying lysyl oxidase, an enzyme involved in crosslinking of matrix molecules. As an alternative, gene expression levels were measured using qPCR. Various RNA isolation procedures were probed. The gene expression profile for specific dermal and epidermal genes could be measured reliably and reproducibly. Differences caused by changes in the cell culture conditions could easily be detected. The number of cells in the skin substitutes was measured using the PicoGreen dsDNA assay, which was found highly quantitative and reproducible. The (dis) advantages of assays used for quantitative evaluation of skin substitutes are discussed.

Abstract

Treatment of full-thickness skin defects with split-thickness skin grafts is generally associated with contraction and scar formation and cellular skin substitutes have been developed to improve skin regeneration. The evaluation of cultured skin substitutes is generally based on qualitative parameters focusing on histology. In this study we focused on quantitative evaluation to provide a template for comparison of human bio-engineered skin substitutes between clinical and/or research centers, and to supplement histological data. We focused on extracellular matrix proteins since these components play an important role in skin regeneration. As a model we analyzed the human dermal substitute denovoDerm and the dermo-epidermal skin substitute denovoSkin. The quantification of the extracellular matrix proteins type III collagen and laminin 5 in tissue homogenates using western blotting analysis and ELISA was not successful. The same was true for assaying lysyl oxidase, an enzyme involved in crosslinking of matrix molecules. As an alternative, gene expression levels were measured using qPCR. Various RNA isolation procedures were probed. The gene expression profile for specific dermal and epidermal genes could be measured reliably and reproducibly. Differences caused by changes in the cell culture conditions could easily be detected. The number of cells in the skin substitutes was measured using the PicoGreen dsDNA assay, which was found highly quantitative and reproducible. The (dis) advantages of assays used for quantitative evaluation of skin substitutes are discussed.

Statistics

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Children's Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Surgery
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:May 2017
Deposited On:24 Aug 2017 13:31
Last Modified:25 Aug 2017 07:38
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0305-4179
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2016.10.002
PubMed ID:28041746

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher