BACKGROUND: Adipose tissue gene expression analysis in humans now provides a tremendous means to discover the physiopathologic gene targets critical for our understanding and treatment of obesity. Clinical studies are emerging in which adipose gene expression has been examined in hundreds of subjects, and it will be fundamentally important that these studies can be compared so that a common consensus can be reached and new therapeutic targets for obesity proposed. OBJECTIVE: We studied the effect of the biopsy sampling methods (needle-aspirated and surgical) used in clinical investigation programs on the functional interpretation of adipose tissue gene expression profiles. DESIGN: A comparative microarray analysis of the different subcutaneous adipose tissue sampling methods was performed in age-matched lean (n = 19) and obese (n = 18) female subjects. Appropriate statistical (principal components analysis) and bioinformatic (FunNet) functional enrichment software were used to evaluate data. The morphology of adipose tissue samples obtained by needle-aspiration and surgical methods was examined by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Biopsy techniques influence the gene expression underlying the biological themes currently discussed in obesity (eg, inflammation, extracellular matrix, and metabolism). Immunohistochemistry experiments showed that the easier to obtain needle-aspirated biopsies poorly aspirate the fibrotic fraction of subcutaneous adipose tissue, resulting in an underrepresentation of the stroma-vascular fraction. CONCLUSIONS: The adipose tissue biopsy technique is an important caveat to consider when designing, interpreting, and, most important, comparing microarray experiments. These results will have crucial implications for the clinical and physiopathologic understanding of human obesity and therapeutic approaches.
BACKGROUND: Adipose tissue gene expression analysis in humans now provides a tremendous means to discover the physiopathologic gene targets critical for our understanding and treatment of obesity. Clinical studies are emerging in which adipose gene expression has been examined in hundreds of subjects, and it will be fundamentally important that these studies can be compared so that a common consensus can be reached and new therapeutic targets for obesity proposed. OBJECTIVE: We studied the effect of the biopsy sampling methods (needle-aspirated and surgical) used in clinical investigation programs on the functional interpretation of adipose tissue gene expression profiles. DESIGN: A comparative microarray analysis of the different subcutaneous adipose tissue sampling methods was performed in age-matched lean (n = 19) and obese (n = 18) female subjects. Appropriate statistical (principal components analysis) and bioinformatic (FunNet) functional enrichment software were used to evaluate data. The morphology of adipose tissue samples obtained by needle-aspiration and surgical methods was examined by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Biopsy techniques influence the gene expression underlying the biological themes currently discussed in obesity (eg, inflammation, extracellular matrix, and metabolism). Immunohistochemistry experiments showed that the easier to obtain needle-aspirated biopsies poorly aspirate the fibrotic fraction of subcutaneous adipose tissue, resulting in an underrepresentation of the stroma-vascular fraction. CONCLUSIONS: The adipose tissue biopsy technique is an important caveat to consider when designing, interpreting, and, most important, comparing microarray experiments. These results will have crucial implications for the clinical and physiopathologic understanding of humanobesity and therapeutic approaches.
Authors: Ryan W Walker; Hooman Allayee; Alessandro Inserra; Rodolfo Fruhwirth; Anna Alisi; Rita Devito; Magalie E Carey; Frank Sinatra; Michael I Goran; Valerio Nobili Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2014-03-08 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Simon N Dankel; Dag J Fadnes; Anne-Kristin Stavrum; Christine Stansberg; Rita Holdhus; Tuyen Hoang; Vivian L Veum; Bjørn Jostein Christensen; Villy Våge; Jørn V Sagen; Vidar M Steen; Gunnar Mellgren Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: I Dahlman; N Mejhert; K Linder; T Agustsson; D M Mutch; A Kulyte; B Isaksson; J Permert; N Petrovic; J Nedergaard; E Sjölin; D Brodin; K Clement; K Dahlman-Wright; M Rydén; P Arner Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Pekka Määttänen; Brett Trost; Erin Scruten; Andrew Potter; Anthony Kusalik; Philip Griebel; Scott Napper Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 3.441
Authors: Shali Mazaki-Tovi; Adi L Tarca; Edi Vaisbuch; Juan Pedro Kusanovic; Nandor Gabor Than; Tinnakorn Chaiworapongsa; Zhong Dong; Sonia S Hassan; Roberto Romero Journal: J Perinat Med Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 1.901