4.6 Article

Functional differences between neonatal and adult fibroblasts and keratinocytes: Donor age affects epithelial-mesenchymal crosstalk in vitro

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR MEDICINE
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 1063-1074

Publisher

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/ijmm.2016.2706

Keywords

newborn; nestin; keratin; repair; regeneration; scar; fibrosis; extracellular matrix

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clinical evidence suggests that healing is faster and almost scarless at an early neonatal age in comparison with that in adults. In this study, the phenotypes of neonatal and adult dermal fibroblasts and keratinocytes (nestin, smooth muscle actin, keratin types 8, 14 and 19, and fibronectin) were compared. Furthermore, functional assays (proliferation, migration, scratch wound closure) including mutual epithelial-mesenchymal interactions were also performed to complete the series of experiments. Positivity for nestin and smooth muscle actin was higher in neonatal fibroblasts (NFs) when compared with their adult counterparts (adult fibroblasts; AFs). Although the proliferation of NFs and AFs was similar, they significantly differed in their migration potential. The keratinocyte experiments revealed small, poorly differentiated cells (positive for keratins 8, 14 and 19) in primary cultures isolated from neonatal tissues. Moreover, the neonatal keratinocytes exhibited significantly faster rates of healing the experimentally induced in vitro defects in comparison with adult cells. Notably, the epithelial/mesenchymal interaction studies showed that NFs in co-culture with adult keratinocytes significantly stimulated the adult epithelial cells to acquire the phenotype of small, non-confluent cells expressing markers of poor differentiation. These results indicate the important differences between neonatal and adult cells that may be associated with improved wound healing during the early neonatal period.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available