4.7 Review

Pushing Back: Wound Mechanotransduction in Repair and Regeneration

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY
卷 131, 期 11, 页码 2186-2196

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/jid.2011.212

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wallace H Coulter Translational Partners grant
  2. United States Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine (DOD) [W81XWA0-08-2-0032]
  3. Hagey Family Endowed Fund in Stem Cell Research and Regenerative Medicine
  4. Oak Foundation
  5. Uehara Memorial Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human skin is a highly specialized mechanoresponsive interface separating our bodies from the external environment. It must constantly adapt to dynamic physical cues ranging from rapid expansion during embryonic and early postnatal development to ubiquitous external forces throughout life. Despite the suspected role of the physical environment in cutaneous processes, the fundamental molecular mechanisms responsible for how skin responds to force remain unclear. Intracellular pathways convert mechanical cues into biochemical responses (in a process known as mechanotransduction) via complex mechanoresponsive elements that often blur the distinction between physical and chemical signaling. For example, cellular focal adhesion components exhibit dual biochemical and scaffolding functions that are critically modulated by force. Moreover, the extracellular matrix itself is increasingly recognized to mechanically regulate the spatiotemporal distribution of soluble and matrix-bound ligands, underscoring the importance of bidirectional crosstalk between cells and their physical environment. It seems likely that a structural hierarchy exists to maintain both cells and matrix in mechanical homeostasis and that dysregulation of this architectural integrity may underlie or contribute to various skin disorders. An improved understanding of these interactions will facilitate the development of novel biophysical materials and mechanomodulatory approaches to augment wound repair and regeneration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据