Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 221

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Molecular Mechanisms Controlling the Fibrotic Repair Phenotype in Cornea: Implications for Surgical Outcomes

Open access
Stramer, Brian M., Zieske, James D., Jung, Jae-Chang, Austin, Jeffrey S., Fini, M. Elizabeth·2003·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: Incisional or ablation injury to the corneal stroma is repaired by deposition of a fibrotic tissue produced by activated keratocytes, whereas cells lost from the underlying stroma after epithelial abrasion are simply replaced by keratocyte replication without expression of fibrotic markers. The purpose of this study was to investigate mechanisms that determine this differential keratocyte response. METHODS: A penetrating keratectomy rabbit model was adapted for mice to study the fibrotic repair response. A mouse epithelial abrasion model was applied to study the stromal cell replacement response. A primary rabbit corneal cell culture model and an organotypic culture model were also used. RESULTS: When the epithelium was prevented from resurfacing the cornea after penetrating keratectomy, expression of fibrotic markers was considerably reduced. TGF-beta2 was determined to be a major substance produced by corneal epithelial cells capable of inducing the fibrotic phenotype. In the intact mouse cornea, TGF-beta2 was confined to the uninjured epithelium, but was released into the stroma during fibrotic repair. By contrast, TGF-beta1 was never found in the epithelium. When epithelial cells were cultured on a basement-membrane-like gel or allowed to deposit their own basement membrane in organotypic culture, TGF-beta2 production was reduced. Return of a basement membrane after wounding in vivo correlated with loss of the fibrotic phenotype. In the epithelial debridement injury model in which the basement membrane was left intact, TGF-beta2 remained confined to the corneal epithelium, consistent with the absence of a fibrotic phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that integrity of the basement membrane is a deciding factor in determining the regenerative character of corneal repair.

Overview

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 · 10.1167/iovs.02-1188

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Stramer, B. M., Zieske, J. D., Jung, J.-C., Austin, J. S., & Fini, M. E.
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Published
2003-10-01
Volume
44
Issue
10
Pages
4237
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
OpenAlex
W1992121419
Cited by
221
References
5
FWCI
8.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.