Keloid tissue analysis discredits a role for myofibroblasts in disease pathogenesis
Myofibroblasts, renowned for their contractility and extracellular matrix production, are widely considered the key effector cells for nearly all scars resulting from tissue repair processes, ranging from normal scars to extreme fibrosis. For example, it is often assumed that myofibroblasts underpin...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Wound repair and regeneration 2021-07, Vol.29 (4), p.637-641 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 641 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 637 |
container_title | Wound repair and regeneration |
container_volume | 29 |
creator | Bell, Rachel E. Shaw, Tanya J. |
description | Myofibroblasts, renowned for their contractility and extracellular matrix production, are widely considered the key effector cells for nearly all scars resulting from tissue repair processes, ranging from normal scars to extreme fibrosis. For example, it is often assumed that myofibroblasts underpin the characteristics of keloid scars, which are debilitating pathological skin scars lacking effective treatments because of a poor understanding of the disease mechanisms. Here, we present primary and published transcriptional and histological evidence that myofibroblasts are not consistently present in primary keloid lesions, and when alpha‐smooth muscle actin (αSMA)‐positive cells are detected, they are not greater in number or expressing more αSMA than in normal or hypertrophic scars. In conclusion, keloid scars do not appear to require αSMA‐positive myofibroblasts; continuing to consider keloids on a quantitative spectrum with normal or hypertrophic scars, with αSMA serving as a biomarker of disease severity, is hindering advancement of understanding and therapy development. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/wrr.12923 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2524360498</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2524360498</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3603-3499eec2cd641aa616e18268e84a0a65caba30c089ad2999ed4a04ec9fddd7363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtOwzAQRS0EouWx4AdQlrBI60fixEtU8RKVkAoIdpFjT8AoiYudqMrf45LCjtl4NHN8bR2EzgiekVDzjXMzQgVle2hKUprESZa-7Yce8ywmgmYTdOT9J8Y4TUV-iCaMCU4Yzqfo6QFqa3TUGe97iGQr68EbH2njlQNtOh_JyNkaosq6qBlsZUpny1r6sDHtlgPpIVrL7sO-Qwvh8gk6qGTt4XR3HqOXm-vnxV28fLy9X1wtY8U4ZjFLhABQVGmeECk54UByynPIE4klT5UsJcMK50JqKgKrwzwBJSqtdcY4O0YXY-7a2a8efFc04ddQ17IF2_uCBhXhpUTkAb0cUeWs9w6qYu1MI91QEFxsHRbBYfHjMLDnu9i-bED_kb_SAjAfgY2pYfg_qXhdrcbIb9HKfN0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2524360498</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Keloid tissue analysis discredits a role for myofibroblasts in disease pathogenesis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Bell, Rachel E. ; Shaw, Tanya J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bell, Rachel E. ; Shaw, Tanya J.</creatorcontrib><description>Myofibroblasts, renowned for their contractility and extracellular matrix production, are widely considered the key effector cells for nearly all scars resulting from tissue repair processes, ranging from normal scars to extreme fibrosis. For example, it is often assumed that myofibroblasts underpin the characteristics of keloid scars, which are debilitating pathological skin scars lacking effective treatments because of a poor understanding of the disease mechanisms. Here, we present primary and published transcriptional and histological evidence that myofibroblasts are not consistently present in primary keloid lesions, and when alpha‐smooth muscle actin (αSMA)‐positive cells are detected, they are not greater in number or expressing more αSMA than in normal or hypertrophic scars. In conclusion, keloid scars do not appear to require αSMA‐positive myofibroblasts; continuing to consider keloids on a quantitative spectrum with normal or hypertrophic scars, with αSMA serving as a biomarker of disease severity, is hindering advancement of understanding and therapy development.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1067-1927</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1524-475X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12923</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33961308</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Biomarkers ; Cicatrix, Hypertrophic - pathology ; Humans ; Keloid - pathology ; keloids ; myofibroblast ; Myofibroblasts - pathology ; skin ; smooth muscle actin ; wound ; Wound Healing</subject><ispartof>Wound repair and regeneration, 2021-07, Vol.29 (4), p.637-641</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Wound Healing Society.</rights><rights>2021 The Authors. Wound Repair and Regeneration published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Wound Healing Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3603-3499eec2cd641aa616e18268e84a0a65caba30c089ad2999ed4a04ec9fddd7363</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3603-3499eec2cd641aa616e18268e84a0a65caba30c089ad2999ed4a04ec9fddd7363</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6187-368X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fwrr.12923$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fwrr.12923$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33961308$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bell, Rachel E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaw, Tanya J.</creatorcontrib><title>Keloid tissue analysis discredits a role for myofibroblasts in disease pathogenesis</title><title>Wound repair and regeneration</title><addtitle>Wound Repair Regen</addtitle><description>Myofibroblasts, renowned for their contractility and extracellular matrix production, are widely considered the key effector cells for nearly all scars resulting from tissue repair processes, ranging from normal scars to extreme fibrosis. For example, it is often assumed that myofibroblasts underpin the characteristics of keloid scars, which are debilitating pathological skin scars lacking effective treatments because of a poor understanding of the disease mechanisms. Here, we present primary and published transcriptional and histological evidence that myofibroblasts are not consistently present in primary keloid lesions, and when alpha‐smooth muscle actin (αSMA)‐positive cells are detected, they are not greater in number or expressing more αSMA than in normal or hypertrophic scars. In conclusion, keloid scars do not appear to require αSMA‐positive myofibroblasts; continuing to consider keloids on a quantitative spectrum with normal or hypertrophic scars, with αSMA serving as a biomarker of disease severity, is hindering advancement of understanding and therapy development.</description><subject>Biomarkers</subject><subject>Cicatrix, Hypertrophic - pathology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Keloid - pathology</subject><subject>keloids</subject><subject>myofibroblast</subject><subject>Myofibroblasts - pathology</subject><subject>skin</subject><subject>smooth muscle actin</subject><subject>wound</subject><subject>Wound Healing</subject><issn>1067-1927</issn><issn>1524-475X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMtOwzAQRS0EouWx4AdQlrBI60fixEtU8RKVkAoIdpFjT8AoiYudqMrf45LCjtl4NHN8bR2EzgiekVDzjXMzQgVle2hKUprESZa-7Yce8ywmgmYTdOT9J8Y4TUV-iCaMCU4Yzqfo6QFqa3TUGe97iGQr68EbH2njlQNtOh_JyNkaosq6qBlsZUpny1r6sDHtlgPpIVrL7sO-Qwvh8gk6qGTt4XR3HqOXm-vnxV28fLy9X1wtY8U4ZjFLhABQVGmeECk54UByynPIE4klT5UsJcMK50JqKgKrwzwBJSqtdcY4O0YXY-7a2a8efFc04ddQ17IF2_uCBhXhpUTkAb0cUeWs9w6qYu1MI91QEFxsHRbBYfHjMLDnu9i-bED_kb_SAjAfgY2pYfg_qXhdrcbIb9HKfN0</recordid><startdate>202107</startdate><enddate>202107</enddate><creator>Bell, Rachel E.</creator><creator>Shaw, Tanya J.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6187-368X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202107</creationdate><title>Keloid tissue analysis discredits a role for myofibroblasts in disease pathogenesis</title><author>Bell, Rachel E. ; Shaw, Tanya J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3603-3499eec2cd641aa616e18268e84a0a65caba30c089ad2999ed4a04ec9fddd7363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Biomarkers</topic><topic>Cicatrix, Hypertrophic - pathology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Keloid - pathology</topic><topic>keloids</topic><topic>myofibroblast</topic><topic>Myofibroblasts - pathology</topic><topic>skin</topic><topic>smooth muscle actin</topic><topic>wound</topic><topic>Wound Healing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bell, Rachel E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaw, Tanya J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Wound repair and regeneration</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bell, Rachel E.</au><au>Shaw, Tanya J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Keloid tissue analysis discredits a role for myofibroblasts in disease pathogenesis</atitle><jtitle>Wound repair and regeneration</jtitle><addtitle>Wound Repair Regen</addtitle><date>2021-07</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>637</spage><epage>641</epage><pages>637-641</pages><issn>1067-1927</issn><eissn>1524-475X</eissn><abstract>Myofibroblasts, renowned for their contractility and extracellular matrix production, are widely considered the key effector cells for nearly all scars resulting from tissue repair processes, ranging from normal scars to extreme fibrosis. For example, it is often assumed that myofibroblasts underpin the characteristics of keloid scars, which are debilitating pathological skin scars lacking effective treatments because of a poor understanding of the disease mechanisms. Here, we present primary and published transcriptional and histological evidence that myofibroblasts are not consistently present in primary keloid lesions, and when alpha‐smooth muscle actin (αSMA)‐positive cells are detected, they are not greater in number or expressing more αSMA than in normal or hypertrophic scars. In conclusion, keloid scars do not appear to require αSMA‐positive myofibroblasts; continuing to consider keloids on a quantitative spectrum with normal or hypertrophic scars, with αSMA serving as a biomarker of disease severity, is hindering advancement of understanding and therapy development.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>33961308</pmid><doi>10.1111/wrr.12923</doi><tpages>5</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6187-368X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1067-1927 |
ispartof | Wound repair and regeneration, 2021-07, Vol.29 (4), p.637-641 |
issn | 1067-1927 1524-475X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2524360498 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library |
subjects | Biomarkers Cicatrix, Hypertrophic - pathology Humans Keloid - pathology keloids myofibroblast Myofibroblasts - pathology skin smooth muscle actin wound Wound Healing |
title | Keloid tissue analysis discredits a role for myofibroblasts in disease pathogenesis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T21%3A46%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Keloid%20tissue%20analysis%20discredits%20a%20role%20for%20myofibroblasts%20in%20disease%20pathogenesis&rft.jtitle=Wound%20repair%20and%20regeneration&rft.au=Bell,%20Rachel%20E.&rft.date=2021-07&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=637&rft.epage=641&rft.pages=637-641&rft.issn=1067-1927&rft.eissn=1524-475X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/wrr.12923&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2524360498%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2524360498&rft_id=info:pmid/33961308&rfr_iscdi=true |