A comparison of scaffold-free and scaffold-based reconstructed human skin models as alternatives to animal use

Tissue engineered full-thickness human skin substitutes have various applications in the clinic and in the laboratory, such as in the treatment of burns or deep skin defects, and as reconstructed human skin models in the safety testing of drugs and cosmetics and in the fundamental study of skin biol...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAlternatives to laboratory animals Vol. 45; no. 6; p. 309
Main Author Kinikoglu, Beste
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England 01.12.2017
Subjects
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

Loading…
Abstract Tissue engineered full-thickness human skin substitutes have various applications in the clinic and in the laboratory, such as in the treatment of burns or deep skin defects, and as reconstructed human skin models in the safety testing of drugs and cosmetics and in the fundamental study of skin biology and pathology. So far, different approaches have been proposed for the generation of reconstructed skin, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Here, the classic tissue engineering approach, based on cell-seeded polymeric scaffolds, is compared with the less-studied cell self-assembly approach, where the cells are coaxed to synthesise their own extracellular matrix (ECM). The resulting full-thickness human skin substitutes were analysed by means of histological and immunohistochemical analyses. It was found that both the scaffold-free and the scaffold-based skin equivalents successfully mimicked the functionality and morphology of native skin, with complete epidermal differentiation (as determined by the expression of filaggrin), the presence of a continuous basement membrane expressing collagen VII, and new ECM deposition by dermal fibroblasts. On the other hand, the scaffold-free model had a thicker epidermis and a significantly higher number of Ki67-positive proliferative cells, indicating a higher capacity for self-renewal, as compared to the scaffold-based model.
AbstractList Tissue engineered full-thickness human skin substitutes have various applications in the clinic and in the laboratory, such as in the treatment of burns or deep skin defects, and as reconstructed human skin models in the safety testing of drugs and cosmetics and in the fundamental study of skin biology and pathology. So far, different approaches have been proposed for the generation of reconstructed skin, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Here, the classic tissue engineering approach, based on cell-seeded polymeric scaffolds, is compared with the less-studied cell self-assembly approach, where the cells are coaxed to synthesise their own extracellular matrix (ECM). The resulting full-thickness human skin substitutes were analysed by means of histological and immunohistochemical analyses. It was found that both the scaffold-free and the scaffold-based skin equivalents successfully mimicked the functionality and morphology of native skin, with complete epidermal differentiation (as determined by the expression of filaggrin), the presence of a continuous basement membrane expressing collagen VII, and new ECM deposition by dermal fibroblasts. On the other hand, the scaffold-free model had a thicker epidermis and a significantly higher number of Ki67-positive proliferative cells, indicating a higher capacity for self-renewal, as compared to the scaffold-based model.
Author Kinikoglu, Beste
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Beste
  surname: Kinikoglu
  fullname: Kinikoglu, Beste
  organization: Department of Medical Biology, School of Medicine, Acibadem University, Istanbul, Turkey, and Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29313702$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNpFj81KxDAUhbMYcX70BVxIXqCam7RNsxwG_2DAja6H2-YGq20yJKng29tBRThwON_icM6aLXzwxNgViBsArW-FrAGMNKBFWQlRC71gqxMsTnTJ1im9z7hUYM7ZUhoFSgu5Yn7LuzAeMfYpeB4cTx06FwZbuEjE0dt_0mIiyyN1waccpy7P6W0a0fP00Xs-BktD4jhryBQ95v6TEs9hbulHHPiU6IKdORwSXf76hr3e373sHov988PTbrsvOlWbXFTKUSNIGtNKhBo1lCXYVpumMaoTVduoChokcE5XzgplWmE1GpKl0qqxcsOuf3qPUzuSPRzjvCB-Hf6Oy2_jA1vq
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_3390_polym15132945
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_tiv_2020_104779
crossref_primary_10_1021_acsbiomaterials_2c00342
crossref_primary_10_1093_toxsci_kfad093
crossref_primary_10_1002_adhm_202303351
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_021_01513_x
crossref_primary_10_1002_term_3246
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright 2017 FRAME.
Copyright_xml – notice: 2017 FRAME.
DBID CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
DOI 10.1177/026119291704500607
DatabaseName Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
DatabaseTitle MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: EIF
  name: MEDLINE
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search
  sourceTypes: Index Database
DeliveryMethod no_fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Zoology
Biology
ExternalDocumentID 29313702
Genre Journal Article
Comparative Study
GroupedDBID ---
53G
54M
6P2
AABMB
AACMV
AADUE
AAEWN
AAGGD
AAHBH
AAKGS
AARIX
AATAA
AAZBJ
ABDWY
ABJIS
ABKRH
ABLUO
ABPNF
ABRHV
ABVFX
ABVVC
ABYTW
ACARO
ACDXX
ACFEJ
ACFMA
ACJER
ACLDX
ACLFY
ACLHI
ACOFE
ACOXC
ACSIQ
ACUAV
ACUIR
ACXKE
ACXMB
ADEIA
ADMPF
ADRRZ
ADUKL
AESZF
AEWHI
AEXNY
AFKRG
AFMOU
AFQAA
AFUIA
AGKLV
AGNHF
AI.
AIOMO
AJEFB
AJUZI
AJXAJ
ALKWR
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
ALTZF
ANDLU
ARTOV
BBRGL
BDDNI
BKIIM
BKSCU
BPACV
BSEHC
BWJAD
CBRKF
CDWPY
CFDXU
CGR
CORYS
CQQTX
CUTAK
CUY
CVF
CWQVV
CYONA
DC-
DCPMT
DOPDO
EBS
ECM
EIF
EJD
F5P
FHBDP
GROUPED_SAGE_PREMIER_JOURNAL_COLLECTION
H13
J8X
JCYGO
M4V
NPM
P2P
Q1R
SAFTQ
SCNPE
SFC
VH1
ZONMY
ZPPRI
ZRKOI
ZSSAH
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-53fe80e299b2a16a71441db798893c05b83518ae1ff75fd039b0d7a9e243738d2
ISSN 0261-1929
IngestDate Sat Sep 28 08:37:47 EDT 2024
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 6
Language English
License 2017 FRAME.
LinkModel OpenURL
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c369t-53fe80e299b2a16a71441db798893c05b83518ae1ff75fd039b0d7a9e243738d2
PMID 29313702
ParticipantIDs pubmed_primary_29313702
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2017-12-01
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2017-12-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 12
  year: 2017
  text: 2017-12-01
  day: 01
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace England
PublicationPlace_xml – name: England
PublicationTitle Alternatives to laboratory animals
PublicationTitleAlternate Altern Lab Anim
PublicationYear 2017
SSID ssj0064319
Score 2.2323034
Snippet Tissue engineered full-thickness human skin substitutes have various applications in the clinic and in the laboratory, such as in the treatment of burns or...
SourceID pubmed
SourceType Index Database
StartPage 309
SubjectTerms Animal Testing Alternatives
Animals
Cell Differentiation
Cells, Cultured
Collagen - physiology
Humans
Skin - growth & development
Skin, Artificial
Tissue Engineering - methods
Tissue Scaffolds
Title A comparison of scaffold-free and scaffold-based reconstructed human skin models as alternatives to animal use
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29313702
Volume 45
hasFullText
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1bS8MwFA5eEHwR73fJg29SaZemaR-HKCLok8LwRZI0kbHZDjcf9Nd7TtKt3Zx4gVKypA1rvo_k5HK-Q8hpkphU84wHKZcsiCXTgWJWBlyoUPFQh6nFpYHbu-T6Ib7p8E59rNl5l4zUuf6Y61fyH1QhD3BFL9k_IDupFDIgDfjCHRCG-68wbldHyKswgmdDLa0t-3lgX43fFpjk4GiFjiq6rCRj4ZePzzfsdQsfEGeIQWfc9nnh5MCd-IMsui8A49tw6sxQe-apiku4Ye9fqPeIukW3Vz733xyTcHW1udAAg1d9aMP3R7hUBQZh1uw8vRZkRZJmT8ic6sGcHtrtEWNdWFUkwKRETRjRfBhaefDiMANjJGLC-WT_UDqjmj0uWiSLIsWe7w5XcfwIDUaYC_gy-aCxMxUKcX35YygXXVU2M_VwJsj9Olmr5g607YmwQRZMsUlWfDTRd0g9li61RYo2rYlBS0uniEGBGHSaGHSKGNQRgyIxqCcGlXA1IKejknqcKRBjmzxcXd5fXAdVYI1AsyQbBZxZk4YGLBHVklEiBc6qc4XSdRnTIVdglkepNJG1gts8ZJkKcyEz03JCWHlrhywVZWH2CGVK2Eij1RnzmOUtZW1uY2W4BkseRuF9suub7Gng1VOexo158G3JIVmt-XdEli2Q1hyD7TdSJw7IT_9dWFo
link.rule.ids 786
linkProvider National Library of Medicine
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A+comparison+of+scaffold-free+and+scaffold-based+reconstructed+human+skin+models+as+alternatives+to+animal+use&rft.jtitle=Alternatives+to+laboratory+animals&rft.au=Kinikoglu%2C+Beste&rft.date=2017-12-01&rft.issn=0261-1929&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=309&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177%2F026119291704500607&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F29313702&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F29313702&rft.externalDocID=29313702
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0261-1929&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0261-1929&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0261-1929&client=summon