Figure 1:

Technical considerations for human skin microbiome modeling. a) Comparison of skin models used; Epiderm, Labskin, and NativeSkin, respectively, highlighting major differences with histologic representations obtained from manufacturer websites: Epiderm (Mattek website, https://www.mattek.com/wp-content/uploads/Histology-1-1.png, retrieved 2020), Labskin (Innovenn, image from Holland et al. 2008), NativeSkin (Genoskin website, https://www.genoskin.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/HE-1024×241.png, retrieved 2020). b) Comparison of microbiome collection methods. Barplots show mean relative abundance of a donor’s microbiome obtained via tissue dissociation and filtration, whole skin bead-beating, or surface sampling with a flocked swab (n=2). c) Richness of untreated explant microbiota by sampling method (p=0.04). d) Shannon Diversity Index (richness and evenness) of untreated explant microbiota by sampling method (p=0.13). e) Boxplots of inverse Yue-Clayton Theta Index comparing the microbiome composition of explants within the same donor versus between donors. 1 represents 100% similarity, 0 complete dissimilarity (p = 0.006). f) Inverse Yue-Clayton Theta Index of similarity comparing the microbiome composition of explants processed on day 0 or at the end of the recommended experimental life of the explant (5–7 days) (p = 0.91). g) Mean relative abundance of endogenous NativeSkin flora by donor. 16S rRNA gene amplicon analysis, plotting the 15 most abundant species. N=2 for each donor/day. * indicates Kruskal Wallis chi-squared test p<0.05. **indicates bidirectional Wilcox rank sum test p < 0.05. NS (Not Significant).