Cited by 56Xenotransplantation and immune responseDermatology and Skin DiseasesOrgan and Tissue Transplantation Research

Human reconstructed skin xenografts on mice to model skin physiology

Salgado, Giorgiana, Ng, Yi Zhen, Koh, Li Fang, Goh, Christabelle S.M., Common, John E.·2017·Differentiation

Abstract

Xenograft models to study skin physiology have been popular for scientific use since the 1970s, with various developments and improvements to the techniques over the decades. Xenograft models are particularly useful and sought after due to the lack of clinically relevant animal models in predicting drug effectiveness in humans. Such predictions could in turn boost the process of drug discovery, since novel drug compounds have an estimated 8% chance of FDA approval despite years of rigorous preclinical testing and evaluation, albeit mostly in non-human models. In the case of skin research, the mouse persists as the most popular animal model of choice, despite its well-known anatomical differences with human skin. Differences in skin biology are especially evident when trying to dissect more complex skin conditions, such as psoriasis and eczema, where interactions between the immune system, epidermis and the environment likely occur. While the use of animal models are still considered the gold standard for systemic toxicity studies under controlled environments, there are now alternative models that have been approved for certain applications. To overcome the biological limitations of the mouse model, research efforts have also focused on "humanizing" the mice model to better recapitulate human skin physiology. In this review, we outline the different approaches undertaken thus far to study skin biology using human tissue xenografts in mice and the technical challenges involved…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diff.2017.09.004

Cites

128 of 128 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Salgado, G., Ng, Y. Z., Koh, L. F., Goh, C. S. M., & Common, J. E.
Affiliations
Agency for Science, Technology and Research (SG)
Corresponding author
Common, John E.
Venue
Differentiation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-11
Volume
98
Pages
14-24
ISSN
0301-4681 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2755767958
Cited by
56
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Differentiation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Biomedical Research Council (BMRC) of Singapore
  • A*STAR SPF (IAF SPF 2013/004, IAF SPF 2013/005)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Xenotransplantation and immune response
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatology and Skin Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Transplantation › Organ and Tissue Transplantation Research
Keywords
human skin xenograft, humanized mice, skin physiology, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, drug discovery, alternative animal models, human immune system, epidermis, systemic toxicity
MeSH terms
Animals, Disease Models, Animal, Epidermis, Humans, Skin, Skin Physiological Phenomena, Skin Transplantation, Heterografts

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