4.6 Review

Epithelial stem cells and implications for wound repair

期刊

SEMINARS IN CELL & DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 23, 期 9, 页码 946-953

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2012.10.001

关键词

Wound healing; Re-epithelialization; Epithelial stem cells; Hair follicle stem cells; Hair follicle neogenesis

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR054982, R01 AR055309, P30 AR057217, R21 AR059346] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Activation of epithelial stem cells and efficient recruitment of their proliferating progeny plays a critical role in cutaneous wound healing. The reepithelialized wound epidermis has a mosaic composition consisting of progeny that can be traced back both to epidermal and several types of hair follicle stem cells. The contribution of hair follicle stem cells to wound epidermis is particularly intriguing as it involves lineage identity change from follicular to epidermal. Studies from our laboratory show that hair follicle-fated bulge stem cells commit only transient amplifying epidermal progeny that participate in the initial wound re-epithelialization, but eventually are outcompeted by other epidermal clones and largely disappear after a few months. Conversely, recently described stem cell populations residing in the isthmus portion of hair follicle contribute long-lasting progeny toward wound epidermis and, arguably, give rise to new interfollicular epidermal stem cells. The role of epithelial stem cells during wound healing is not limited to regenerating stratified epidermis. By studying regenerative response in large cutaneous wounds, our laboratory uncovered that epithelial cells in the center of the wound can acquire greater morphogenetic plasticity and, together with the underlying wound dermis, can engage in an embryonic-like process of hair follicle neogenesis. Future studies should uncover the cellular and signaling basis of this remarkable adult wound regeneration phenomenon. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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