067 Reversal of ε(γ‐Glutamyl) Lysine Cross‐Linking and Down‐Regulation of Fibronectin and Tissue Transglutaminase (tTGase) Activity in Hypertrophic Scars Following Treatment with 0.8% 1,4 DAB 2HCL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertrophic scar formation is an unfavorable condition which is difficult to predict, prevent or treat. Although much research has been done on understanding hypertrophic scar formation, the exact underlying molecular mechanism has not been fully elucidated. Hypertrophic scars younger than 6 months are known to over‐express tTGase. It has been shown that treatment of hypertrophic scars with topical 1, 4 DAB 2HCl inhibited ε(γ‐glutamyl) lysine cross‐linking 4 . In the current study, 12 paired scar biopsies, either treated or untreated with 1, 4 DAB 2HCl were examined for the presence of ε(γ‐glutamyl) lysine cross‐linking by fluorescence immunohistochemistry. In situ tTGase enzyme activity, expression of latent tissue TGF‐β binding protein‐1 (LTBP‐1) and fibronectin were also examined. Scars showed a marked reduction of ε(γ‐glutamyl) lysine cross‐linking following treatment with 1, 4 DAB 2HCl. Although the treated samples did not show any change in expression of tTGase, its in situ activity was noticeably reduced. Treated samples also demonstrated down‐regulation of fibronectin and LTBP‐1. Results suggest that topical treatment of hypertrophic scars with 1,4 DAB 2HCl not only reduced ε(γ‐glutamyl) lysine cross‐linking but also reduced tTGase activity, expression of fibronectin and LTBP‐1 5 which are known to play a role in extracellular matrix storage of transforming grown factor‐β(TGF‐β), responsible for wound healing and scar formation. 4 Dolynchuk KN. Wound Rep Reg 1996; 4(1): 16–20. 5 Verderio E, Gaudry C et al. J. Histochem 1999; 47(11): 1417–1432.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".