4.6 Article

Myofibroblast differentiation is induced in keratinocyte-fibroblast co-cultures and is antagonistically regulated by endogenous transforming growth factor-β and interleukin-1

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 164, 期 6, 页码 2055-2066

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63764-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In wound healing epidermal-dermal interactions are known to regulate keratinocyte proliferation and differentiation. To find out how fibroblasts respond to epithelial stimuli, we characterized fibroblasts in monolayer co-culture with keratinocytes. On co-culture numerous extracellular matrix- and smooth muscle cell-associated gene transcripts were up-regulated in fibroblasts, suggesting a differentiation into myofibroblasts. increased a-smooth muscle actin (alpha-SMA) protein expression in co-cultured fibroblasts started at approximately day 4, was serum-independent, but required endogenous transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta. In co-cultures, TGF-beta neutralizing monoclonal antibody strongly reduced alpha-SMA induction. Endogenous TGF-beta production and activation were increased at 24 and 48 hours, requiring, like alpha-SMA induction, close keratinocyte-fibroblast proximity. As myofibroblast differentiation only started after 4 days, we analyzed the presence of endogenous inhibitors at early time points. Blocking keratinocyte-derived interleukin (IL)-1 using IL-1 receptor antagonist, alpha-SMA expression in co-cultures was potentiated. Conversely, adding exogenous, IL-1alpha completely suppressed endogenous a-SMA induction. in co-cultured fibroblasts strong nuclear factor-kappaB binding activity was observed from 2 hours, decreasing at 2 and 4 days, suggesting an early, IL-1-mediated inhibition of TGF-beta signaling in co-cultured fibroblasts. This biphasic differentiation event is regulated by the balance of endogenous TGF-beta and IL-1 activity and is reminiscent of myofibroblast differentiation at early and later stages of wound healing.

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