4.8 Article

Fibroblast inflammatory priming determines regenerative versus fibrotic skin repair in reindeer

Journal

CELL
Volume 185, Issue 25, Pages 4717-+

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.11.004

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science and Engineering Research Council [RGPIN/04825-2017, RGPIN/04992-2014]
  2. Calgary Firefighters Burn Treatment Society
  3. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health [UL1TR001998]
  4. [NIAMS-R01AR070313]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study shows that reindeer antler skin can regenerate after injury, while back skin forms fibrotic scars. The differences in outcomes are attributed to the distinct fibroblast and immune responses in the two types of skin.
Adult mammalian skin wounds heal by forming fibrotic scars. We report that full-thickness injuries of reindeer antler skin (velvet) regenerate, whereas back skin forms fibrotic scar. Single-cell multi-omics reveal that uninjured velvet fibroblasts resemble human fetal fibroblasts, whereas back skin fibroblasts express inflam-matory mediators mimicking pro-fibrotic adult human and rodent fibroblasts. Consequently, injury elicits site-specific immune responses: back skin fibroblasts amplify myeloid infiltration and maturation during repair, whereas velvet fibroblasts adopt an immunosuppressive phenotype that restricts leukocyte recruit-ment and hastens immune resolution. Ectopic transplantation of velvet to scar-forming back skin is initially regenerative, but progressively transitions to a fibrotic phenotype akin to the scarless fetal-to-scar-forming transition reported in humans. Skin regeneration is diminished by intensifying, or enhanced by neutralizing, these pathologic fibroblast-immune interactions. Reindeer represent a powerful comparative model for inter-rogating divergent wound healing outcomes, and our results nominate decoupling of fibroblast-immune interactions as a promising approach to mitigate scar.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available