2009
DOI: 10.1007/s11626-009-9229-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Isolating bronchial epithelial cell preparations from gross lung specimens

Abstract: Tissue microdissection is appropriate for separating pure cells from heterogeneous tissues. Recently, we have focused on whole genome DNA methylation patterns of lung squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and needed to obtain the appropriate counterpart cells of lung SCC. However, in some regions of human tissues, such as in bronchial epithelium, it is difficult to apply tissue microdissection as a means to isolate pure cells from a heterogenous mixture of cells. Accordingly, we developed the pop brush method to retri… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 3 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this experiment, we used normal bronchial epithelial cells as a normal control for the SCC paraffin block samples, and we used the method we reported in 2008. 35 With this process, we could confirm the similar DNA methylation pattern with those from the 20 frozen tissue samples in four genes: CCDC37, CYTL1, LMO3, and SERPINB5. On the other hand, two genes, CDO1 and SLIT2, showed different results from that of the 20 frozen tissue samples, as is presented in Table 5.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…In this experiment, we used normal bronchial epithelial cells as a normal control for the SCC paraffin block samples, and we used the method we reported in 2008. 35 With this process, we could confirm the similar DNA methylation pattern with those from the 20 frozen tissue samples in four genes: CCDC37, CYTL1, LMO3, and SERPINB5. On the other hand, two genes, CDO1 and SLIT2, showed different results from that of the 20 frozen tissue samples, as is presented in Table 5.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 60%