Cited by 86Macrophage Migration Inhibitory FactorWound Healing and TreatmentsHair Growth and Disorders

MIF: a key player in cutaneous biology and wound healing: MIF, hormones and the skin

Gilliver, Stephen C., Emmerson, Elaine, Bernhagen, Jürgen, Hardman, Matthew J.·2011·Experimental Dermatology

Abstract

Owing to its implication in a range of pathological conditions, including asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, atherosclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease and cancer, the pleiotropic cytokine macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) has been the subject of intensive recent investigation. In the field of dermatology, MIF is believed to be a detrimental factor in diseases such as systemic sclerosis, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, eczema and UV radiation damage. However, its contribution to other aspects of cutaneous biology is currently unclear. Although its expression in intact skin is well characterized, little is known about MIF's role in cutaneous homoeostasis. However, recent data do identify MIF as a key player in the immune privilege of hair follicles. Similarly, although MIF is rapidly released and its local expression significantly induced upon wounding, its primary role in the ensuing repair process remains a source of contention. MIF has been identified as being a key effector of the beneficial effects of estrogen on wound repair, yet studies employing Mif null mice, recombinant MIF, and neutralizing anti-MIF antibodies have failed to provide a consensus as to whether it benefits or inhibits healing. In fact MIF appears to be able to exert both positive and negative effects, with the cell-specific relevancy of MIF in wound healing still unclear. Thus, if MIF and/or its downstream targets are to be therapeutically useful in the context of cutaneous repair, more needs to be done to establish the nature and mechanism of action of MIF and its receptors in healing wounds.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-0625.2010.01194.x

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gilliver, S. C., Emmerson, E., Bernhagen, J., & Hardman, M. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • RWTH Aachen University (DE)
Corresponding author
Hardman, Matthew J.
Venue
Experimental Dermatology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-12-16
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
1-6
ISSN
0906-6705 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1961906585
Cited by
86
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
0.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Experimental Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Macrophage Migration Inhibitory Factor
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Hair Growth and Disorders
Keywords
macrophage migration inhibitory factor, wound healing, skin, hair follicle immune privilege, estrogen, MIF receptor, anti-MIF antibody, skin diseases, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, systemic sclerosis, UV damage
MeSH terms
Aging, Animals, Female, Humans, Macrophage Migration-Inhibitory Factors, Male, Models, Biological, Receptors, Immunologic, Gonadal Steroid Hormones, Skin, Skin Diseases, Skin Physiological Phenomena, Wound Healing, Signal Transduction, Intramolecular Oxidoreductases, Mice

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