Open AccessDiffusion measurements in epidermal tissues with fluorescent recovery after photobleaching
Author(s) -
Cornelissen Lisette H.,
Bronneberg Debbie,
Oomens Cees W. J.,
Baaijens Frank P. T.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
skin research and technology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.521
H-Index - 69
eISSN - 1600-0846
pISSN - 0909-752X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0846.2008.00313.x
Subject(s) - fluorescence recovery after photobleaching , epidermis (zoology) , photobleaching , diffusion , fluorescence , effective diffusion coefficient , biophysics , human skin , chemistry , biomedical engineering , medicine , biochemistry , anatomy , biology , membrane , optics , physics , genetics , radiology , magnetic resonance imaging , thermodynamics
Background/purpose: Pressure ulcers are areas of soft tissue breakdown, resulting from sustained mechanical loading of the skin and underlying tissues. Measuring biochemical markers that are released upon mechanical loading by the epidermis seems a promising method for objective risk assessment of the development of pressure ulcers. This risk assessment method will better determine the risk of a patient to develop pressure ulcers than the risk score lists currently used. So far, experimental studies have been performed that measure the tissue response in the culture supernatant. To elucidate the transport of the biochemical markers within the epidermis, the diffusion coefficient needs to be established. Methods: In the current study, fluorescent recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) is used to determine the diffusion coefficient of fluorescent‐labeled dextran molecules in human epidermis, porcine epidermis and engineered epidermal equivalents. These dextran molecules have a similar weight to the biochemical markers. Results: Similar diffusion coefficients were found for human and porcine epidermal samples (6.2 × 10 −5 ±1.2 × 10 −5 and 5.9 × 10 −5 ±6.1 × 10 −6 mm 2 /s, respectively), whereas the diffusion coefficient of the engineered epidermal equivalent was significantly lower (2.3 × 10 −5 ±1.0 × 10 −5 mm 2 /s). Conclusion: The diffusion could be measured in epidermal tissues using FRAP. In the future, the diffusion coefficients obtained in the current study will be used to study the difference between the transport in EpiDerm cultures and in human epidermis.