Normal skin wound and hypertrophic scar myofibroblasts have differential responses to apoptotic inductors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During wound healing, myofibroblasts play a central role in matrix formation and wound contraction. At the end of healing, there is evidence that myofibroblasts disappear via apoptotic pathways. Hypertrophic scars are a fibroproliferative disorder that leads to considerable morbidity. It has been postulated that a defect in myofibroblast apoptosis could be responsible for the pathological scar formation, but no evidence exists. We have isolated and cultured human normal wound (Wmyo) and hypertrophic scar (Hmyo) myofibroblasts and compared their basal apoptotic rates and their sensitivity to serum starvation and Fas antibody-induced apoptosis to that obtained for dermal fibroblasts (Fb). A higher rate of apoptosis as evidenced by morphological criteria and a propidium iodide assay was observed for Wmyo in comparison to Fb and Hmyo. These results came along with a low level of the anti-apoptotic proteins Bcl-2 and Bclx(L) in Wmyo, whereas there was an increase in the level of the pro-apoptotic molecule Bax when compared to the results obtained for Fb and Hmyo. Hmyo showed a higher level of Bcl-2 compared to Fb but no difference in the Bax or Bclx(L) level. After serum starvation, Wmyo revealed an increased apoptotic rate, whereas Hmyo and Fb did not show any difference. Anti-Fas treatment did not modify the levels of apoptosis but strongly increased the cell growth of Hmyo as compared to Wmyo. This is the first study presenting a broad vision of the apoptotic sensitivity of normal and pathological myofibroblasts. These results confirmed the hypothesis of defects in apoptosis and growth during pathological scar formation impeding myofibroblast disappearance at the end of healing.
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".