Myofibroblasts from skin wound and hypertrophic scar present different apoptotic response to body fluids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Myofibroblasts play a central role in matrix formation and contraction during healing. At the end of healing, there is evidence that myofibroblasts disappear via apoptotic mechanisms. It has been postulated that a defect in myofibroblast apoptosis could be responsible for the formation of hypertrophic scars, but the stimuli that trigger apoptosis are unknown. Cells being surrounded by fluids containing molecules responsible of their cell fate, we have analyzed the cell apoptotic responses to serum and plasma as representative of body fluids. We have isolated and cultured human dermal fibroblasts (Fb), normal wound (Wmyo) and hypertrophic scar (Hmyo) myofibroblasts and compared their apoptotic rates in absence and presence of human serum and plasma, and fetal bovine sera. Using a propidium iodine, we have shown that presence of these body fluids induced a decrease of apoptosis in Hmyo and Fb, while an increase of apoptosis was denoted for Wmyo. These effects are at least due to thermally sensitive protein(s) with a molecular mass greater than 30 000D. These results confirmed the hypothesis of defects in apoptosis during pathological scar formation impeding myofibroblast disappearance. This study was granted by CIHR. VM was the recipient of scholarship from FRSQ.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".