MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W344726046 · doi:10.1089/ten.tea.2013.0434

Fibrotic Remodeling of Tissue-Engineered Skin with Deep Dermal Fibroblasts Is Reduced by Keratinocytes

2013· article· en· W344726046 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTissue Engineering Part A · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDermisDecorinFibroblastScarsFibrosisDermal fibroblastConnective tissueWound healingExtracellular matrixPathologyKeratinocyteVersicanChemistryHuman skinFibronectinType I collagenHypertrophic scarCell biologyMedicineBiologyProteoglycanImmunologyIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two-thirds of burn patients with deep dermal injuries are affected by hypertrophic scars, and currently, there are no clinically effective therapies. Tissue-engineered skin is a very promising model for the elucidation of the role of matrix microenvironment and biomechanical characteristics and could help in the identification of new therapeutic targets for hypertrophic scars. Conventionally, tissue-engineered skin is made of heterogeneous dermal fibroblasts and keratinocytes; however, recent work has shown that superficial and deep dermal fibroblasts are antifibrotic and profibrotic, respectively. Furthermore, keratinocytes are believed to regulate the development and remodeling of fibrosis in skin. This study aimed to assess the influence of keratinocytes and layered fibroblasts on the characteristics of tissue-engineered skin. Layered fibroblasts and keratinocytes isolated from superficial and deep dermis and epidermis, respectively, of the lower abdominal tissue were independently co-cultured on collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffolds, and the resulting tissue-engineered skin was assessed for differences in tissue remodeling based on the underlying specific dermal fibroblast subpopulation. Collagen production by deep fibroblasts but not by superficial fibroblasts was significantly reduced upon co-culture with keratinocytes. Also, keratinocytes in the tissue-engineered skin resulted in significantly reduced expression of profibrotic connective tissue growth factor and fibronectin, and increased expression of the antifibrotic matrix metalloproteinase-1 by deep fibroblasts but not by superficial fibroblasts. Tissue-engineered skin made of deep fibroblasts and keratinocytes had lower levels of small proteoglycans, decorin, and fibromodulin, and higher levels of large proteoglycan, versican, compared to tissue-engineered skin made of superficial fibroblasts and keratinocytes. Tissue-engineered skin made of deep fibroblasts and keratinocytes had lower expression of transforming growth factor (TGF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1, and keratinocyte growth factor but higher expression of platelet-derived growth factor and IL-6, compared to tissue-engineered skin made of superficial fibroblasts and keratinocytes. Furthermore, co-culture with keratinocytes reduced TGF-β1 production of deep but not superficial fibroblasts. Additionally, keratinocytes reduced the differentiation of deep fibroblasts to myofibroblasts in tissue-engineered skin constructs, but not that of superficial fibroblasts. Taken together, keratinocytes reduce fibrotic remodeling of the scaffolds by deep dermal fibroblasts. Our results therefore demonstrate that tissue-engineered skin made specifically with a homogeneous population of superficial fibroblasts and keratinocytes is less fibrotic than that with a heterogeneous population of fibroblasts and keratinocytes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it