4.6 Review

Hiding in Plain Sight: Human Gingival Fibroblasts as an Essential, Yet Overlooked, Tool in Regenerative Medicine

期刊

CELLS
卷 12, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells12162021

关键词

regenerative repair; fibroblast; mesenchymal progenitor cells; gingiva; wound healing; scarless repair; pluripotency; tissue engineering

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adult human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) are important for maintaining oral homeostasis and have great potential for tissue engineering and regeneration applications. They have unique characteristics such as resistance to myofibroblast differentiation, immunomodulation, high regenerative capacity, and responsiveness to growth factors and cytokines. This review highlights in vitro and translational studies on the regenerative and differentiation potential of HGFs and emphasizes the need for further research to translate their potential into clinical applications.
Adult human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs), the most abundant cells in the oral cavity, are essential for maintaining oral homeostasis. Compared with other tissues, adult oral mucosal wounds heal regeneratively, without scarring. Relative to fibroblasts from other locations, HGFs are relatively refractory to myofibroblast differentiation, immunomodulatory, highly regenerative, readily obtained via minimally invasive procedures, easily and rapidly expanded in vitro, and highly responsive to growth factors and cytokines. Consequently, HGFs might be a superior, yet perhaps underappreciated, source of adult mesenchymal progenitor cells to use in tissue engineering and regeneration applications, including the treatment of fibrotic auto-immune connective tissue diseases such as scleroderma. Herein, we highlight in vitro and translational studies that have investigated the regenerative and differentiation potential of HGFs, with the objective of outlining current limitations and inspiring future research that could facilitate translating the regenerative potential of HGFs into the clinic.

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