Morphologic and Histologic Comparison of Hypertrophic Scar in Nude Mice, T-Cell Receptor, and Recombination Activating Gene Knockout Mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proliferative scars in nude mice have demonstrated morphologic and histologic similarities to human hypertrophic scar. Gene knockout technology provides the opportunity to study the effect of deleting immune cells in various disease processes. The authors' objective was to test whether grafting human skin onto T-cell receptor (TCR) αβ-/-γδ-/-, recombination activating gene (RAG)-1-/-, and RAG-2γ-/-c-/- mice results in proliferative scars consistent with human hypertrophic scar and to characterize the morphologic, histologic, and cellular changes that occur after removing immune cells. METHODS: Nude TCRαβ-/-γδ-/-, RAG-1-/-, and RAG-2-/-γc-/- mice (n = 20 per strain) were grafted with human skin and euthanized at 30, 60, 120, and 180 days. Controls (n = 5 per strain) were autografted with mouse skin. Scars and normal skin were harvested at each time point. Sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, Masson's trichrome, and immunohistochemistry for anti-human leukocyte antigen-ABC, α-smooth muscle actin, decorin, and biglycan. RESULTS: TCRαβ-/-γδ-/-, RAG-1-/-, and RAG-2-/-γc-/- mice grafted with human skin developed firm, elevated scars with histologic and immunohistochemical similarities to human hypertrophic scar. Autografted controls showed no evidence of pathologic scarring. Knockout animals demonstrated a capacity for scar remodeling not observed in nude mice where reductions in α-smooth muscle actin staining pattern and scar thickness occurred over time. CONCLUSIONS: Human skin transplanted onto TCRαβ-/-γδ-/-, RAG-1-/-, and RAG-2-/-γc-/- mice results in proliferative scars with morphologic and histologic features of human hypertrophic scar. Remodeling of proliferative scars generated in knockout animals is analogous to changes in human hypertrophic scar. These animal models may better represent the natural history of human hypertrophic scar.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".