ArticleVeterinary dermatology2026
Tolerability and Feasibility of Minimally Invasive Canine Skin Sampling: Excellent Tolerability Meets Transcriptomic Challenges.
Article in Veterinary dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Tolerability and Feasibility of Minimally Invasive Canine Skin Sampling: Excellent Tolerability Meets Transcriptomic Challenges.Veterinary dermatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdvances in transcriptomics have driven the demand for minimally invasive, reproducible and high-yield skin sampling methods, particularly for studying inflammatory skin diseases in companion animals. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesWe tested tolerability, feasibility and RNA quantity and quality of three minimally invasive skin sampling techniques. ANIMALS: Nine privately-owned dogs, including healthy individuals and those diagnosed with canine atopic dermatitis. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe tolerability and feasibility of three minimally invasive skin sampling techniques-microbiopsy (MB) collection, skin-scraping (SS) and tape-stripping (TS)-were tested in a clinical setting. RNA quantity and quality (RIN) were measured. Quality control and potential contamination were evaluated during downstream RNA sequencing.
resultsAll techniques were well-tolerated, and sampling was feasible in a clinical setting. RNA yield and quality varied significantly. Microbiopsy and SS samples yielded low RNA quantities with poor integrity. Tape-stripping samples produced the highest RNA concentration and integrity (RIN 3.4-7.1) yet showed notable variability. Although initial sequencing quality thresholds were met, downstream transcriptomic analysis of the TS samples was limited by uneven degradation and suspected DNA contamination. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Minimally invasive skin sampling methods are feasible and well-tolerated in dogs. Among the techniques evaluated, TS showed the most potential for transcriptomic applications. However, RNA quality remains a key limitation. Further refinement in sample processing and handling is essential to improve consistency and enable reliable downstream analyses in veterinary dermatological research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.