CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Burn Injury Management and OutcomesWound Healing and TreatmentsTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

Histological assessment of nanostructured fibrin‐agarose skin substitutes grafted in burnt patients. A time‐course study

Open access
Martin‐Piedra, Miguel Angel, Carmona, Gloria, Campos, Fernando, Carriel, Víctor, Fernández‐González, Ana, Campos, Antonio, Cuende, Natividad, Garzón, Ingrid +2 more·2023·Bioengineering & Translational Medicine
DOI 10.1002/btm2.10572PMC PMC10658487
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A previously developed fibrin‐agarose skin model—UGRSKIN—showed promising clinical results in severely burnt patients. To determine the histological parameters associated to the biocompatibility and therapeutic effects of this model, we carried out a comprehensive structural and ultrastructural study of UGRSKIN grafted in severely burnt patients after 3 months of follow‐up. The grafted epidermis was analogue to native human skin from day 30th onward, revealing well‐structured strata with well‐differentiated keratinocytes expressing CK5, CK8, CK10, claudin, plakoglobin, filaggrin, and involucrin in a similar way to controls, suggesting that the epidermis was able to mature and differentiate very early. Melanocytes and Langerhans cells were found from day 30th onward, together with a basement membrane, abundant hemidesmosomes and lack of rete ridges. At the dermal layer, we found an interface between the grafted skin and the host tissue at day 30th, which tended to disappear with time. The grafted superficial dermis showed a progressive increase in properly‐oriented collagen fibers, elastic fibers and proteoglycans, including decorin, similarly to control dermis at day 60‐90th of in vivo follow‐up. Blood vessels determined by CD31 and SMA expression were more abundant in grafted skin than controls, whereas lymphatic vessels were more abundant at day 90th. These results contribute to shed light on the histological parameters associated to biocompatibility and therapeutic effect of the UGRSKIN model grafted in patients and demonstrate that the bioengineered skin grafted in patients is able to mature and differentiate very early at the epithelial level and after 60–90 days at the dermal level.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/btm2.10572

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Use of fibrin as standalone adhesion barriers is limited because fibrin can contribute to adhesion formation.

    “However, their use as standalone adhesion barriers is limited because fibrin can contribute to adhesion formation [71,72,73].”

    From Biomaterials in Postoperative Adhesion Barriers and Uterine Tissue Engineering (2025) · cites this paper as [71]

    The Discussion describes integration of fibrin–agarose skin grafts and the skin’s protective barrier, not fibrin used alone as an adhesion barrier. Searches for standalone fibrin barriers and adhesion formation found no passage addressing the claimed limitation. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. [1]Burgess M, Valdera F, Varon D, Kankuri E, Nuutila K. The immune and regenerative response to burn injury. Cell. 2022; 11(19):3073‐3096. doi: 10.3390/cells11193073 PMC9563909 36231034 · DOI
  2. [2]Karppinen SM, Heljasvaara R, Gullberg D, Tasanen K, Pihlajaniemi T. Toward understanding scarless skin wound healing and pathological scarring. F1000Res. 2019; 8:787‐797. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.18293.1 PMC6556993 31231509 · DOI
  3. [3]Amini‐Nik S, Dolp R, Eylert G, et al. Stem cells derived from burned skin—the future of burn care. EBioMedicine. 2018; 37: 509‐ 520. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.10.014 30409728 PMC6284415 · DOI
  4. [4]Yoon D, Cho YS, Joo SY, Seo CH, Cho YS. A clinical trial with a novel collagen dermal substitute for wound healing in burn patients. Biomater Sci. 2020; 8(3): 823‐ 829. doi: 10.1039/c9bm01209e 31782425 · DOI
  5. [5]Oualla‐Bachiri W, Fernandez‐Gonzalez A, Quinones‐Vico MI, Arias‐Santiago S. From grafts to human bioengineered vascularized skin substitutes. Int J Mol Sci. 2020; 21(21):8197‐8224. doi: 10.3390/ijms21218197 PMC7662999 33147759 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [6]De Francesco F, Busato A, Mannucci S, et al. Artificial dermal substitutes for tissue regeneration: comparison of the clinical outcomes and histological findings of two templates. J Int Med Res. 2020; 48(8): 300060520945508. doi: 10.1177/0300060520945508 32790486 PMC7427157 · DOI
  7. [7]Cottone G, Amendola F, Strada C, et al. Comparison of efficacy among three dermal substitutes in the management of critical lower‐limb wounds: the largest biases‐reduced single‐center retrospective cohort study in literature. Medicina. 2021; 57(12):1367‐1376. doi: 10.3390/medicina57121367 PMC8708540 34946312 · DOI
  8. [8]Carriel V, Garzon I, Jimenez JM, et al. Epithelial and stromal developmental patterns in a novel substitute of the human skin generated with fibrin‐agarose biomaterials. Cells Tissues Organs. 2012; 196(1): 1‐ 12. doi: 10.1159/000330682 22146480 · DOI
  9. [9]Ionescu AM, Chato‐Astrain J, Cardona Perez JC, et al. Evaluation of the optical and biomechanical properties of bioengineered human skin generated with fibrin‐agarose biomaterials. J Biomed Opt. 2020; 25(5): 1‐ 16. doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.25.5.055002 PMC7203517 32383372 · DOI
  10. [10]Ruiz‐Lopez J, Cardona JC, Garzon I, et al. Optical behavior of human skin substitutes: absorbance in the 200‐400 nm UV range. Biomedicine. 2022; 10(7):1640‐1652. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10071640 PMC9313464 35884945 · DOI
  11. [11]Scionti G, Moral M, Toledano M, et al. Effect of the hydration on the biomechanical properties in a fibrin‐agarose tissue‐like model. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014; 102(8): 2573‐ 2582. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.34929 23963645 · DOI
  12. [12]Chato‐Astrain J, Chato‐Astrain I, Sanchez‐Porras D, et al. Generation of a novel human dermal substitute functionalized with antibiotic‐loaded nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) with antimicrobial properties for tissue engineering. J Nanobiotechnol. 2020; 18(1): 174. doi: 10.1186/s12951-020-00732-0 PMC7686763 33228673 · DOI
  13. [13]Egea‐Guerrero JJ, Carmona G, Correa E, et al. Transplant of tissue‐engineered artificial autologous human skin in Andalusia: an example of coordination and institutional collaboration. Transplant Proc. 2019; 51(9): 3047‐ 3050. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2019.08.014 31627920 · DOI
  14. [14]Hartmann‐Fritsch F, Marino D, Reichmann E. About ATMPs, SOPs and GMP: the hurdles to produce novel skin grafts for clinical use. Rev Transfus Med Hemother. 2016; 43(5): 344‐ 352. doi: 10.1159/000447645 PMC5073575 27781022 · DOI
  15. [15]Martin‐Piedra MA, Alfonso‐Rodriguez CA, Zapater A, et al. Effective use of mesenchymal stem cells in human skin substitutes generated by tissue engineering. Eur Cell Mater. 2019; 37: 233‐ 249. doi: 10.22203/eCM.v037a14 30924522 · DOI
  16. [16]Martin‐Piedra MA, Garzon I, Gomez‐Sotelo A, et al. Generation and evaluation of novel stromal cell‐containing tissue engineered artificial stromas for the surgical repair of abdominal defects. Biotechnol J. 2017; 12(12):1700078‐1700087. doi: 10.1002/biot.201700078 28869335 · DOI
  17. [17]Alfonso‐Rodriguez CA, Garzon I, Garrido‐Gomez J, et al. Identification of histological patterns in clinically affected and unaffected palm regions in dupuytren's disease. PloS One. 2014; 9(11): e112457. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112457 25379672 PMC4224499 · DOI
  18. [18]Vela‐Romera A, Carriel V, Martin‐Piedra MA, et al. Characterization of the human ridged and non‐ridged skin: a comprehensive histological, histochemical and immunohistochemical analysis. Histochem Cell Biol. 2019; 151(1): 57‐ 73. doi: 10.1007/s00418-018-1701-x 30099600 PMC6328512 · DOI
  19. [19]Rodriguez‐Pozo JA, Ramos‐Lopez JF, Gonzalez‐Gallardo MC, et al. Evaluation of myopic cornea lenticules. A histochemical and clinical correlation. Exp Eye Res. 2020; 196: 108066. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2020.108066 32439395 · DOI
  20. [20]Carriel V, Garzon I, Campos A, Cornelissen M, Alaminos M. Differential expression of GAP‐43 and neurofilament during peripheral nerve regeneration through bio‐artificial conduits. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2017; 11(2): 553‐ 563. doi: 10.1002/term.1949 25080900 · DOI
  21. [21]Pirnay JP, Vanderkelen A, De Vos D, et al. Business oriented EU human cell and tissue product legislation will adversely impact member States' health care systems. Cell Tissue Bank. 2013; 14(4): 525‐ 560. doi: 10.1007/s10561-013-9397-6 24052113 PMC3838781 · DOI
  22. [22]Kezic S, Jakasa I. Filaggrin and skin barrier function. Curr Probl Dermatol. 2016; 49: 1‐ 7. doi: 10.1159/000441539 26844893 · DOI
  23. [23]Gonzalez JR, Celli A, Weckel A, et al. Filaggrin deficiency in mice alters the early life CD4(+) T cell response to skin commensal bacteria. J Invest Dermatol. 2022; 142: S95. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2022.10.019 36496196 · DOI
  24. [24]Garzon I, Serrato D, Roda O, et al. In vitro cytokeratin expression profiling of human oral mucosa substitutes developed by tissue engineering. Int J Artif Organs. 2009; 32(10): 711‐ 719. doi: 10.1177/039139880903201002 19943232 · DOI
  25. [25]Garzon I, Sanchez‐Quevedo MC, Moreu G, et al. In vitro and in vivo cytokeratin patterns of expression in bioengineered human periodontal mucosa. J Periodontal Res. 2009; 44(5): 588‐ 597. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0765.2008.01159.x 19438973 · DOI
  26. [26]Polari L, Alam CM, Nystrom JH, et al. Keratin intermediate filaments in the colon: guardians of epithelial homeostasis. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2020; 129: 105878. doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2020.105878 33152513 · DOI
  27. [27]Senoo M. Epidermal stem cells in homeostasis and wound repair of the skin. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2013; 2(6): 273‐ 282. doi: 10.1089/wound.2012.0372 24527349 PMC3842871 · DOI
  28. [28]Brettmann EA, de Guzman SC. Recent evolution of the human skin barrier. Exp Dermatol. 2018; 27(8): 859‐ 866. doi: 10.1111/exd.13689 29787621 PMC6392702 · DOI
  29. [29]Niculet E, Bobeica C, Tatu AL. Glucocorticoid‐induced skin atrophy: the old and the new. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2020; 13: 1041‐ 1050. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S224211 PMC7779293 33408495 · DOI
  30. [30]Stone Ii R, Natesan S, Kowalczewski CJ, et al. Advancements in regenerative strategies through the continuum of burn care. Front Pharmacol. 2018; 9: 672. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2018.00672 30038569 PMC6046385 · DOI
  31. [31]Tan XYD, Wiseman T, Betihavas V. Risk factors for nosocomial infections and/or sepsis in adult burns patients: an integrative review. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2022; 73: 103292. doi: 10.1016/j.iccn.2022.103292 35879132 · DOI
  32. [32]Riccio M, Marchesini A, Zingaretti N, et al. A multicentre study: the use of micrografts in the reconstruction of full‐thickness posttraumatic skin defects of the limbs‐a whole innovative concept in regenerative surgery. Stem Cells Int. 2019; 2019: 5043518. doi: 10.1155/2019/5043518 31885613 PMC6915006 · DOI
  33. [33]Jimi S, Takagi S, De Francesco F, Miyazaki M, Saparov A. Acceleration of skin wound‐healing reactions by autologous micrograft tissue suspension. Medicina (Kaunas). 2020; 56(7):321‐333. doi: 10.3390/medicina56070321 PMC7404788 32610512 · DOI
  34. [34]Momeni M, Fallah N, Bajouri A, et al. A randomized, double‐blind, phase I clinical trial of fetal cell‐based skin substitutes on healing of donor sites in burn patients. Burns. 2019; 45(4): 914‐ 922. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2018.10.016 30559055 · DOI
  35. [35]Meuli M, Hartmann‐Fritsch F, Huging M, et al. A cultured autologous dermo‐epidermal skin substitute for full‐thickness skin defects: a phase I, open, prospective clinical trial in children. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019; 144(1): 188‐ 198. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005746 31246829 · DOI
  36. [36]Yousef H, Alhajj M, Sharma S. Anatomy, Skin (Integument). Epidermis; 2022. 29262154
  37. [37]Gardien KL, Marck RE, Bloemen MC, et al. Outcome of burns treated with autologous cultured proliferating epidermal cells: a prospective randomized multicenter intrapatient comparative trial. Cell Transplant. 2016; 25(3): 437‐ 448. doi: 10.3727/096368915X689569 26419871 · DOI
  38. [38]Shen Z, Sun L, Liu Z, et al. Rete ridges: morphogenesis, function, regulation, and reconstruction. Acta Biomater. 2023; 155: 19‐ 34. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.11.031 36427683 · DOI
  39. [39]Aleemardani M, Trikic MZ, Green NH, Claeyssens F. The importance of mimicking dermal‐epidermal junction for skin tissue engineering: a review. Bioengineering (Basel). 2021; 8(11):148‐171. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering8110148 PMC8614934 34821714 · DOI
  40. [40]Roig‐Rosello E, Rousselle P. The human epidermal basement membrane: a shaped and cell instructive platform that aging slowly alters. Biomolecules. 2020; 10(12):1607‐1638. doi: 10.3390/biom10121607 PMC7760980 33260936 · DOI
  41. [41]Hirobe T, Enami H, Nakayama A. The human melanocyte and melanoblast populations per unit area of epidermis in the rete ridge are greater than in the inter‐rete ridge. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2021; 43(2): 211‐ 217. doi: 10.1111/ics.12682 33296514 · DOI
  42. [42]Shin JW, Kwon SH, Choi JY, et al. Molecular mechanisms of dermal aging and antiaging approaches. Int J Mol Sci. 2019; 20(9):2126‐2141. doi: 10.3390/ijms20092126 PMC6540032 31036793 · DOI · Paper page
  43. [43]Zerbinati N, Calligaro A. Calcium hydroxylapatite treatment of human skin: evidence of collagen turnover through picrosirius red staining and circularly polarized microscopy. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2018; 11: 29‐ 35. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S143015 PMC5772396 29391818 · DOI
  44. [44]Kobayasi T, Karlsmark T. Type V and VI collagen for cohesion of dermal fibrillar structures. J Submicrosc Cytol Pathol. 2006; 38(2–3): 103‐ 108. 17784637
  45. [45]Mak KM, Png CY, Lee DJ. Type V collagen in health, disease, and fibrosis. Anat Rec. 2016; 299(5): 613‐ 629. doi: 10.1002/ar.23330 26910848 · DOI · Paper page
  46. [46]Kosho T, Mizumoto S, Watanabe T, Yoshizawa T, Miyake N, Yamada S. Recent advances in the pathophysiology of musculocontractural Ehlers‐Danlos syndrome. Genes (Basel). 2019; 11(1):43‐56. doi: 10.3390/genes11010043 PMC7017038 31905796 · DOI
  47. [47]Chandra P, Atala A. Engineering blood vessels and vascularized tissues: technology trends and potential clinical applications. Clin Sci. 2019; 133(9): 1115‐ 1135. doi: 10.1042/CS20180155 31088895 · DOI
  48. [48]Masson‐Meyers DS, Tayebi L. Vascularization strategies in tissue engineering approaches for soft tissue repair. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2021; 15(9): 747‐ 762. doi: 10.1002/term.3225 34058083 PMC8419139 · DOI · Paper page
  49. [49]Frangiamore SJ, Morris ER, Scibetta AC, et al. Evaluation of endothelial and vascular‐derived progenitor cell populations in the proximal and distal UCL of the elbow: a comparative study. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018; 6(6): 2325967118777825. doi: 10.1177/2325967118777825 29977939 PMC6024543 · DOI
  50. [50]Braverman IM. Ultrastructure and organization of the cutaneous microvasculature in normal and pathologic states. J Invest Dermatol. 1989; 93(2 Suppl): 2S‐ 9S. doi: 10.1111/1523-1747.ep12580893 2666519 · DOI
  51. [51]Selahi A, Jain A. Engineered models of the lymphatic vascular system: past, present, and future. Microcirculation. 2022; 30: e12793. doi: 10.1111/micc.12793 36415150 · DOI
  52. [52]Bruggen MC, Stingl G. Subcutaneous white adipose tissue: the deepest layer of the cutaneous immune barrier. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2020; 18(11): 1225‐ 1227. doi: 10.1111/ddg.14335 33197138 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martin‐Piedra, M. A., Carmona, G., Campos, F., Carriel, V., Fernández‐González, A., Campos, A., Cuende, N., Garzón, I., Gacto, P., & Alaminos, M.
Affiliations
  • Tissue Engineering Group, Department of Histology University of Granada Spain
  • Andalusian Health Service (ES)
  • Universidad de Granada (ES)
  • Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío (ES)
Corresponding author
  • Fernández‐González, Ana
  • Garzón, Ingrid
  • Gacto, Purificación
ORCID
Venue
Bioengineering & Translational Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-07-07
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
e10572-e10572
ISSN
2380-6761 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/btm2.10572
PMC
PMC10658487
OpenAlex
W4383536163
Cited by
25
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
FWCI
4.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Bioengineering & Translational Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Repository of the University of Granada (University of Granada) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Consejería de Salud y Familias, Junta de Andalucía (PE‐0395‐2019, PI‐0458‐2016)
  • Consejería de Transformación Económica, Industria, Conocimiento y Universidades (B‐CTS‐450‐UGR20)
  • Instituto de Salud Carlos III (AC17/00013)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Burn Injury Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Keywords
severe burns, skin grafting, epidermal maturation, keratinocyte differentiation, skin collagen, decorin, angiogenesis, lymphatic vessels, biocompatibility, histology, ultrastructure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review