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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Wound repair and regeneration 2021-07, Vol.29 (4), p.637-641
Hauptverfasser: Bell, Rachel E., Shaw, Tanya J.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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