Affordable Access

Access to the full text

Comparison of skin biopsy sample processing and storage methods on high dimensional immune gene expression using the Nanostring nCounter system

  • Vider, Jelena1, 1
  • Croaker, Andrew2, 3
  • Cox, Amanda J.1, 1
  • Raymond, Emma4, 5
  • Rogers, Rebecca4
  • Adamson, Stuart6
  • Doyle, Michael4
  • O’Brien, Blake7
  • Cripps, Allan W.1, 8
  • West, Nicholas P.1, 1
  • 1 Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, 4222, Australia , Gold Coast (Australia)
  • 2 Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW, Australia , Lismore (Australia)
  • 3 Toormina Medical Centre, Toormina, NSW, Australia , Toormina (Australia)
  • 4 Wesley Medical Research, Auchenflower, QLD, Australia , Auchenflower (Australia)
  • 5 Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia, Camperdown, NSW, Australia , Camperdown (Australia)
  • 6 Mid-West Aero Medical, Geraldton, Perth, Australia , Geraldton (Australia)
  • 7 Sullivan &Nicolaides Pathology, Bowen Hills, QLD, Australia , Bowen Hills (Australia)
  • 8 Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia , Gold Coast (Australia)
Published Article
Diagnostic Pathology
BioMed Central
Publication Date
May 15, 2020
DOI: 10.1186/s13000-020-00974-4
Springer Nature


BackgroundDigital multiplex gene expression profiling is overcoming the limitations of many tissue-processing and RNA extraction techniques for the reproducible and quantitative molecular classification of disease. We assessed the effect of different skin biopsy collection/storage conditions on mRNA quality and quantity and the NanoString nCounter™ System’s ability to reproducibly quantify the expression of 730 immune genes from skin biopsies.MethodsHealthy human skin punch biopsies (n = 6) obtained from skin sections from four patients undergoing routine abdominoplasty were subject to one of several collection/storage protocols, including: i) snap freezing in liquid nitrogen and transportation on dry ice; ii) RNAlater (ThermoFisher) for 24 h at room temperature then stored at − 80 °C; iii) formalin fixation with further processing for FFPE blocks; iv) DNA/RNA shield (Zymo) stored and shipped at room temperature; v) placed in TRIzol then stored at − 80 °C; vi) saline without RNAse for 24 h at room temperature then stored at − 80 °C. RNA yield and integrity was assessed following extraction via NanoDrop, QuantiFluor with RNA specific dye and a Bioanalyser (LabChip24, PerkinElmer). Immune gene expression was analysed using the NanoString Pancancer Immune Profiling Panel containing 730 genes.ResultsExcept for saline, all protocols yielded total RNA in quantities/qualities that could be analysed by NanoString nCounter technology, although the quality of the extracted RNA varied widely. Mean RNA integrity was highest from samples that were placed in RNALater (RQS 8.2 ± 1.15), with integrity lowest from the saline stored sample (RQS < 2). There was a high degree of reproducibility in the expression of immune genes between all samples with the exception of saline, with the number of detected genes at counts < 100, between 100 and 1000 and > 10,000 similar across extraction protocols.ConclusionsA variety of processing methods can be used for digital immune gene expression profiling in mRNA extracted from skin that are comparable to snap frozen skin specimens, providing skin cancer clinicians greater opportunity to supply skin specimens to tissue banks. NanoString nCounter technology can determine gene expression in skin biopsy specimens with a high degree of sensitivity despite lower RNA yields and processing methods that may generate poorer quality RNA. The increased sensitivity of digital gene expression profiling continues to expand molecular pathology profiling of disease.

Report this publication


Seen <100 times