Cited by 534Wound Healing and TreatmentsHair Growth and DisordersDermatologic Treatments and Research

Skin wound healing in humans and mice: Challenges in translational research

Zomer, Helena D., Trentin, Andrea G.·2018·Journal of Dermatological Science

Abstract

Despite the great progress in translational research concerning skin wound healing in the last few decades, no animal model fully predicts all clinical outcomes. The mouse is the most commonly used model, as it is easy to maintain and standardize, and is economically accessible. However, differences between murine and human skin repair, such as the contraction promoted by panniculus carnosus and the role of specific niches of skin stem cells, make it difficult to bridge the gap between preclinical and clinical studies. Therefore, this review highlights the particularities of each species concerning skin morphophysiology, immunology, and genetics, which is essential to properly interpret findings and translate them to medicine.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2017.12.009

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • Mice and pigs have critical differences in skin morphology and disease processes from human skin, complicating research translation.

    “Furthermore, human skin models are necessary to reduce the reliance on animal models such as mice and pigs, where the skin morphology and disease processes have critical differences from that of human skin, complicating research translation [1, 2].”
  • There are critical differences between mouse and human skin, such as the mechanisms of wound closure, which have confounded efforts to translate therapies to the clinic.

    “Yet, there are critical differences between mouse and human skin, such as the mechanisms of wound closure, which have confounded efforts to translate therapies to the clinic”
  • These differences impact epidermal homeostasis, wound repair, and the severity of certain skin disorders.

    “These differences impact epidermal homeostasis, wound repair, and the severity of certain skin disorders”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zomer, H. D., & Trentin, A. G.
Affiliations
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (BR)
Corresponding author
Zomer, Helena D.
Venue
Journal of Dermatological Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-04
Volume
90
Issue
1
Pages
3-12
ISSN
0923-1811 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2780153520
Cited by
534
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 84 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 89 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 9 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Dermatological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministério da Saúde (MS-SCTIE-DECIT)
  • Ministério da Ciência
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Hair Growth and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatologic Treatments and Research
Keywords
skin wound healing, translational research, mouse model, human-mouse differences, panniculus carnosus, skin stem cells, skin repair, preclinical to clinical translation, skin immunology
MeSH terms
Animals, Disease Models, Animal, Humans, Skin, Skin Physiological Phenomena, Species Specificity, Wound Healing, Mice, Translational Research, Biomedical

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