BackgroundSkin tape‐strips and biopsies are widely used methods for investigating the skin in atopic dermatitis (AD). Biopsies are more commonly used but can cause scarring and pain, whereas tape‐strips are noninvasive but sample less tissue. The study evaluated the performance of skin tape‐strips and biopsies for studying AD.MethodsWhole‐transcriptome RNA‐sequencing was performed on paired tape‐strips and biopsies collected from lesional and non‐lesional skin from AD patients (n = 7) and non‐AD controls (n = 5). RNA yield, mapping efficiency, and differentially expressed genes (DEGs) for the two methods (tape‐strip/biopsy) and presence of AD (AD/non‐AD) were compared.ResultsTape‐strips demonstrated a lower RNA yield (22 vs. 4596 ng) and mapping efficiency to known genes (28% vs. 93%) than biopsies. Gene‐expression profiles of paired tape‐strips and biopsies demonstrated a medium correlation (R2 = 0.431). Tape‐strips and biopsies demonstrated systematic differences in measured expression levels of 6483 genes across both AD and non‐AD samples. Tape‐strips preferentially detected many itch (CCL3/CCL4/OSM) and immune‐response (CXCL8/IL4/IL5/IL22) genes as well as markers of epidermal dendritic cells (CD1a/CD207), while certain cytokines (IL18/IL37), skin‐barrier genes (KRT2/FLG2), and dermal fibroblasts markers (COL1A/COL3A) were preferentially detected by biopsies. Tape‐strips identified more DEGs between AD and non‐AD (3157 DEGs) then biopsies (44 DEGs). Tape‐strips also detected higher levels of bacterial mRNA than biopsies.ConclusionsThis study concludes that tape‐strips and biopsies each demonstrate respective advantages for measuring gene‐expression changes in AD. Thus, the specific skin layers and genes of interest should be considered before selecting either method.

中文翻译：

---

特应性皮炎中配对胶带和皮肤活检的 RNA 测序揭示了关键差异

背景皮肤胶带条和活检是广泛用于研究特应性皮炎（AD）皮肤的方法。活检更常用，但会导致疤痕和疼痛，而胶带条是非侵入性的，但取样的组织较少。该研究评估了皮肤胶带条和活检在研究 AD 方面的性能。方法对从 AD 患者病变和非病变皮肤收集的成对胶带条和活检进行全转录组 RNA 测序（n= 7) 和非 AD 控制 (n= 5）。比较了两种方法（胶带条/活检）的 RNA 产量、作图效率和差异表达基因 (DEG) 以及 AD 的存在（AD/非 AD）。结果胶带条显示出较低的 RNA 产量（22 vs. 4596 ng），已知基因的定位效率（28% vs. 93%）高于活检。配对胶带和活检的基因表达谱显示出中等相关性（右2= 0.431）。胶带和活检显示 AD 和非 AD 样本中 6483 个基因的测量表达水平存在系统差异。胶带优先检测许多瘙痒（CCL3/CCL4/OSM）和免疫反应（CXCL8/IL4/IL5/IL22）基因以及表皮树突细胞标记（CD1a/CD207），而某些细胞因子（IL18/IL37） 、皮肤屏障基因（KRT2/FLG2）和真皮成纤维细胞标记物（COL1A/COL3A）优先通过活检检测。胶带检测发现 AD 和非 AD 之间的 DEG (3157 DEG) 比活检 (44 DEG) 更多。与活检相比，胶带检测到的细菌 mRNA 水平更高。结论本研究得出的结论是，胶带和活检在测量 AD 基因表达变化方面各自具有各自的优势。因此，在选择任一方法之前应考虑特定的皮肤层和感兴趣的基因。