| Literature DB >> 21406068 |
John N McGinley1, Zongjian Zhu, Weiqin Jiang, Henry J Thompson.
Abstract
Laser capture microdissection (LCM) enables collection of cell populations highly enriched for specific cell types that have the potential of yielding critical information about physiological and pathophysiological processes. One use of cells collected by LCM is for gene expression profiling. Samples intended for transcript analyses should be of the highest quality possible. RNA degradation is an ever-present concern in molecular biological assays, and LCM is no exception. This paper identifies issues related to preparation, collection, and processing in a lipid-rich tissue, rodent mammary gland, in which the epithelial to stromal cell ratio is low and the stromal component is primarily adipocytes, a situation that presents numerous technical challenges for high-quality RNA isolation. Our goal was to improve the procedure so that a greater probe set present call rate would be obtained when isolated RNA was evaluated using Affymetrix microarrays. The results showed that the quality of RNA isolated from epithelial cells of both mammary gland and mammary adenocarcinomas was high with a probe set present call rate of 65% and a high signal-to-noise ratio.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21406068 PMCID: PMC3055717 DOI: 10.1007/s12575-010-9026-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biol Proced Online ISSN: 1480-9222 Impact factor: 3.244
Figure 1Human breast vs. rat MG. a Normal human breast ductal epithelium surrounded by thick fibrous connective tissue (arrows), H&E, ×400, bar = 10 μm. b Normal rat MG depicting ductal epithelium with a thin layer of connective tissue (arrows) surrounded by numerous adipocytes, H&E, ×400, bar = 10 μm.
Figure 2Laser capture microdissection. Cryosectioning chamber depicting MG whole mount bisected through the LN chain (red dashed line). Bisected MG halves were mounted on separate object holders and rotated at a slight angle with respect to the blade. The LN chain served as an anchoring point, making it easier to section MG with high adipose content.
Figure 3a Unstained MA section showing AOIs marked in . b Image of LCM cap showing captured epithelial AOIs. c LCM of normal MG depicting stromal debris attached to the macro cap. d Cap area from panel C after removal of stromal debris via adhesive note.
Figure 4Proper inverted orientation of microfuge tubes and heating block. Microfuge tubes were kept inverted during initial RNA extraction, ensuring adequate coverage of extraction buffer across the surface of the LCM cap.
Figure 5Stained tissue vs. unstained tissue. a Electropherogram of LCM acquired epithelia from Histogene®-stained MA showing significant rRNA degradation. b Electropherogram of LCM acquired epithelia from unstained MA showing high-quality rRNA. c Histogene®-stained MA. d Unstained MA.
Figure 6Electropherogram comparison of LCM time course samples from unstained MA. a LCM duration of 2 h. b LCM duration of 1 h. c LCM duration of 30 min. RNA quality determined by Bio-Rad Experion.
RNA yield and LCM cell estimate
| Tissue | NanoDrop (ng/μL) | Total RNA (ng) | Laser fires per cap | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MA ( | 7.9 ± 0.8 (2.1, 16.7) | 8.6 ± 0.8 (2.3, 17.8) | 86 | 3,277.9 ± 141.0 (778.0; 8,212.0) | 6,202.2 ± 223.2 (1,182.6; 12,511.5) | 24,808.7 ± 1,270.2 |
| MG ( | 4.5 ± 0.4 (1.8, 10.4) | 4.9 ± 0.5 (1.8, 14.5) | 49 | 785.6 33.0 (61.0; 2,190.0) | 994.2 ± 42.5 (69.5; 2,678.2) | 8,192.2 ± 728.3 |
aValues are means ± SEM (min, max). Good correlation was observed between Experion and NanoDrop results obtained from both MA (r = 0.88, p < 0.01) and MG (r = 0.83, p < 0.01). Cell estimates were calculated based on the formula developed by Espina et al. [10]. Spot sizes ranged from 20 to 40 μm for MA and 10 to 15 μm for MG. A typical cell diameter of 7 μm was used for all rat mammary epithelium, percent overlap was kept constant at 40%, and 95% efficiency was assumed
bBecause of limitations in the amount of time that could be spent collecting cells on each cap without RNA degradation and the dispensed nature of cell distribution within MG, there were fewer cells per MG cap and more variability in cell count per cap
cA total of four caps were dissected each MA and eight caps from each MG specimen
Quality control of 42 GeneChips®a
| Item | MG | MA | Overall | Expected |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Background | 55 ± 4 | 49 ± 3 | 52 ± 2 | <100 |
| Noise | 2.3 ± 0.2 | 2.1 ± 0.2 | 2.2 ± 0.1 | <5 |
| Percent present (%) | 65 ± 0.6 | 65 ± 0.8 | 65 ± 0.5 | >35 |
| 3'/5' | 2.0 ± 0.7 | 1.7 ± 0.5 | 1.8 ± 0.4 | <3 |
| 3'/5' | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 2.3 ± 0.6 | 1.7 ± 0.3 | <3 |
| 3'/5' | 3.3 ± 0.9 | 2.1 ± 0.5 | 2.7 ± 0.5 | <3 |
| 3'/5' | 1.9 ± 0.6 | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.3 | <3 |
| 5' Signal value bioB | 1,562 ± 43 | 1,585 ± 65 | 1573 ± 39 | Increasing stepwise trend (bioB, bioC, bioD, and cre) |
| 5' Signal value bioC | 4,660 ± 125 | 4,554 ± 125 | 4,607 ± 88 | |
| 5' Signal value bioD | 8,458 ± 229 | 8,232 ± 242 | 8,345 ± 165 | |
| 5' Signal value cre | 25,205 ± 730 | 24,492 ± 662 | 24,848 ± 490 |
aValues are means ± SEM