4.7 Article

Prx-1 Expression in Xenopus laevis Scarless Skin-Wound Healing and Its Resemblance to Epimorphic Regeneration

Journal

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY
Volume 131, Issue 12, Pages 2477-2485

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/jid.2011.223

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan
  2. KAKENHI
  3. Cabinet Office, Government of Japan
  4. Graduate School of Life Sciences, Tohoku University
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21247002, 22124005, 22770224] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite a strong clinical need for inducing scarless wound healing, the molecular factors required to accomplish it are unknown. Although skin-wound healing in adult mammals often results in scarring, some amphibians can regenerate injured body parts, even an amputated limb, without it. To understand the mechanisms of perfect skin-wound healing in regenerative tetrapods, we studied the healing process in young adult Xenopus froglets after experimental skin excision. We found that the excision wound healed completely in Xenopus froglets, without scarring. Mononuclear cells expressing a homeobox gene, prx1, accumulated under the new epidermis of skin wounds on the limb and trunk and at the regenerating limb. In transgenic Xenopus froglets expressing a reporter for the mouse prx1 limb-specific enhancer, activity was seen in the healing skin and in the regenerating limb. Comparable activity did not accompany skin-wound healing in adult mice. Our results suggest that scarless skin-wound healing may require activation of the prx1 limb enhancer, and competence to activate the enhancer is probably a prerequisite for epimorphic regeneration, such as limb regeneration. Finally, the induction of this prx1 enhancer activity may be useful as a reliable marker for therapeutically induced scarless wound healing in mammals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available