4.8 Article

Organ-Level Quorum Sensing Directs Regeneration in Hair Stem Cell Populations

期刊

CELL
卷 161, 期 2, 页码 277-290

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.02.016

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) [RO1-AR42177, AR 47364, AR60306]
  2. NSC [100-2314-B-075-044, 101-2314-B-075-008-MY3]
  3. Taipei Veterans General Hospital [VN103-12, V103C-010, V102B-009, R-1100403]
  4. NIGMS [P50-GM076516]
  5. NIH [R01DE17449]
  6. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81270015]
  7. NIAMS [R01-AR067273]
  8. Edward Mallinckrodt Jr. Foundation grant
  9. California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) [TG2-01152]
  10. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program [DGE-1321846]
  11. Northern Research Parternship (NRP)
  12. Top Notch University plan of CKU, Taiwan
  13. University of Southern California [D2014-0054, 2014-255]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coordinated organ behavior is crucial for an effective response to environmental stimuli. By studying regeneration of hair follicles in response to patterned hair plucking, we demonstrate that organ-level quorum sensing allows coordinated responses to skin injury. Plucking hair at different densities leads to a regeneration of up to five times more neighboring, unplucked resting hairs, indicating activation of a collective decision-making process. Through data modeling, the range of the quorum signal was estimated to be on the order of 1 mm, greater than expected for a diffusible molecular cue. Molecular and genetic analysis uncovered a two-step mechanism, where release of CCL2 from injured hairs leads to recruitment of TNF-alpha-secreting macrophages, which accumulate and signal to both plucked and unplucked follicles. By coupling immune response with regeneration, this mechanism allows skin to respond predictively to distress, disregarding mild injury, while meeting stronger injury with full-scale cooperative activation of stem cells.

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

4.8
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