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...
Saved in:
Published in | Alternatives to laboratory animals Vol. 45; no. 6; p. 309 |
---|---|
Main Author | |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
England
01.12.2017
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get 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 |