Cited by 145Wound Healing and TreatmentsSkin and Cellular Biology ResearchDiagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases

Deregulation of keratinocyte differentiation and activation: a hallmark of venous ulcers

Open access
Stojadinovic, Olivera, Pastar, Irena, Vukelic, Sasa, Mahoney, Mỹ G., Brennan, Donna, Krzyzanowska, Agata, Golinko, Michael, Brem, Harold +1 more·2008·Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine

Abstract

Epidermal morphology of chronic wounds differs from that of normal epidermis. Biopsies of non‐healing edges obtained from patients with venous ulcers show thick and hyperproliferative epidermis with mitosis present in suprabasal layers. This epidermis is also hyper‐keratotic and parakeratotic. This suggests incomplete activation and differentiation of keratinocytes. To identify molecular changes that lead to pathogenic alterations in keratinocyte activation and differentiation pathways we isolated mRNA from non‐healing edges deriving from venous ulcers patients and determined transcriptional profiles using Affymetrix chips. Obtained transcriptional profiles were compared to those from healthy, unwounded skin. As previously indicated by histology, we found deregulation of differentiation and activation markers. We also found differential regulation of signalling molecules that regulate these two processes. Early differentiation markers, keratins K1/K10 and a subset of small proline‐rich proteins, along with the late differentiation marker filaggrin were suppressed, whereas late differentiation markers involucrin, transgultaminase 1 and another subset of small proline‐rich proteins were induced in ulcers when compared to healthy skin. Surprisingly, desomosomal and tight junction components were also deregulated. Keratinocyte activation markers keratins K6/K16/K17 were induced. We conclude that keratinocytes at the non‐healing edges of venous ulcers do not execute either activation or differentiation pathway, resulting in thick callus‐like formation at the edge of a venous ulcers.

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 · 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2008.00321.x

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?

  • Genomic, proteomic, and lipidomic analyses of human wounds have improved understanding of mechanisms guiding repair and impairment and identified potential biomarkers such as c-myc, β-catenin, S100 proteins, MMPs, and glycerophosphocholines, glycerophosphoglycerols, glycerophosphoinositols, and triacylglycerols.

    “For example, genomic, proteomic, and lipidomic analyses of human wounds have already improved our understanding of the mechanisms that guide the repair process and its impairment, and have identified several potential biomarkers, such as c-myc and β-catenin (7, 178), S100 proteins and MMPs (48), or glycerophosphocholines, glycerophosphoglycerols, glycerophosphoinositols, and triacylglycerols (181”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 73 · Cited by 145

Authors
Stojadinovic, O., Pastar, I., Vukelic, S., Mahoney, M. G., Brennan, D., Krzyzanowska, A., Golinko, M., Brem, H., & Tomic‐Canic, M.
Affiliations
  • Hospital for Special Surgery (US)
  • Thomas Jefferson University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Tomic‐Canic, Marjana
Venue
Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-12-02
Volume
12
Issue
6b
Pages
2675-2690
ISSN
  • 1582-1838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1582-4934
OpenAlex
W1996740089
Cited by
145
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (DK59424)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (NR08029, R01NR008029)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (DK59424, K08DK059424)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (LM 008443, R01LM008443)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Skin and Cellular Biology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Diagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
Keywords
venous ulcers, keratinocyte differentiation, keratinocyte activation, chronic wounds, gene expression profiling, keratin, small proline-rich proteins, filaggrin, involucrin, transglutaminase 1, desmosomes, tight junctions, epidermal hyperproliferation, hyperkeratosis
MeSH terms
Filaggrin Proteins, Cell Differentiation, Desmosomes, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Keratins, Varicose Ulcer, Reproducibility of Results, Biomarkers, Keratinocytes, Cell Adhesion Molecules, Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Gene Expression Profiling, Cell Proliferation

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