Single-cell analysis reveals fibroblast heterogeneity and myeloid-derived adipocyte progenitors in murine skin wounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During wound healing in adult mouse skin, hair follicles and then adipocytes regenerate. Adipocytes regenerate from myofibroblasts, a specialized contractile wound fibroblast. Here we study wound fibroblast diversity using single-cell RNA-sequencing. On analysis, wound fibroblasts group into twelve clusters. Pseudotime and RNA velocity analyses reveal that some clusters likely represent consecutive differentiation states toward a contractile phenotype, while others appear to represent distinct fibroblast lineages. One subset of fibroblasts expresses hematopoietic markers, suggesting their myeloid origin. We validate this finding using single-cell western blot and single-cell RNA-sequencing on genetically labeled myofibroblasts. Using bone marrow transplantation and Cre recombinase-based lineage tracing experiments, we rule out cell fusion events and confirm that hematopoietic lineage cells give rise to a subset of myofibroblasts and rare regenerated adipocytes. In conclusion, our study reveals that wounding induces a high degree of heterogeneity among fibroblasts and recruits highly plastic myeloid cells that contribute to adipocyte regeneration.
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".