4.4 Article

Vitamin C enhances differentiation of a continuous keratinocyte cell line (REK) into epidermis with normal stratum corneum ultrastructure and functional permeability barrier

期刊

HISTOCHEMISTRY AND CELL BIOLOGY
卷 116, 期 4, 页码 287-297

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s004180100312

关键词

keratohyalin granule; lamellar body; stratum corneum; transepidermal water loss

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A continuous rat epidermal cell line (rat epidermal keratinocyte; REK) formed a morphologically well-organized epidermis in the absence of feeder cells when grown for 3 weeks on a collagen gel in culture inserts at an air-liquid interface, and developed a permeability barrier resembling that of human skin. By 2 weeks, an orthokeratinized epidermis evolved with the suprabasal layers exhibiting the differentiation markers keratin 10, involucrin, and filaggrin. Granular cells with keratohvalin granules and lamellar bodies, and corneocytes with cornified envelopes and tightly packed keratin filaments were present. Morphologically, vitamin C supplementation of the culture further enhanced the normal wavy pattern of the stratum corneum, the number of keratohyalin granules present, and the quantity and organization of intercellular lipid lamellae in the interstices of the stratum corneum. The morphological enhancements observed with vitamin C correlated with improved epidermal barrier function, as indicated by reduction of the permeation rates of tritiated corticosterone and mannitol, and transepidermal water loss, with values close to those of human skin. Moreover, filaggrin mRNA was increased by vitamin C, and western blots confirmed higher levels of profilaggrin and filaggrin, suggesting that vitamin C also influences keratinocyte differentiation in aspects other than the synthesis and organization of barrier lipids. The unique REK cell line in organotypic culture thus provides an easily maintained and reproducible model for studies on epidermal differentiation and transepidermal permeation.

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

4.4
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