Recent Developments in Myofibroblast Biology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discovery of the myofibroblast has opened new perspectives for the comprehension of the biological mechanisms involved in wound healing and fibrotic diseases. In recent years, many advances have been made in understanding important aspects of myofibroblast basic biological characteristics. This review summarizes such advances in several fields, such as the following: i) force production by the myofibroblast and mechanisms of connective tissue remodeling; ii) factors controlling the expression of α-smooth muscle actin, the most used marker of myofibroblastic phenotype and, more important, involved in force generation by the myofibroblast; and iii) factors affecting genesis of the myofibroblast and its differentiation from precursor cells, in particular epigenetic factors, such as DNA methylation, microRNAs, and histone modification. We also review the origin and the specific features of the myofibroblast in diverse fibrotic lesions, such as systemic sclerosis; kidney, liver, and lung fibrosis; and the stromal reaction to certain epithelial tumors. Finally, we summarize the emerging strategies for influencing myofibroblast behavior in vitro and in vivo, with the ultimate goal of an effective therapeutic approach for myofibroblast-dependent diseases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".