Keloid progression: a stiffness gap hypothesis

International Wound Journal

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 764-771

  Huang, Chenyu ^a   Liu, Longwei ^b   You, Zhifeng ^b   Wang, Bingjie ^b   Du, Yanan ^b   Ogawa, Rei ^c  

^a TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b Nippon Medical School ^*  (China)

^c NIPPON MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Japan)

Author keywords

Extracellular cell matrix stiffness; Keloid; Mechanobiology; Mechanoresponsiveness; Scar pathology

Indexed keywords

SILICONE;

ARTICLE; ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY; CELLULAR STIFFNESS; DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE MARKER; EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX STIFFNESS; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; KELOID; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ELASTOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STIFFNESS GAP HYPOTHESIS; TUMOR INVASION; ULTRASOUND; ELASTICITY; INJURY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; SKIN DISEASE; WOUND HEALING;

ELASTICITY; HUMANS; KELOID; SKIN DISEASES; WOUND HEALING; WOUNDS AND INJURIES;

EID: 85007227681     PISSN: 17424801     EISSN: 1742481X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12693     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Marneros AG, Norris JE, Watanabe S, Reichenberger E, Olsen BR. Genome scans provide evidence for keloid susceptibility loci on chromosomes 2q23 and 7p11. J Invest Dermatol 2004;122:1126–32.
2. Ogawa R. Keloid and hypertrophic scarring may result from a mechanoreceptor or mechanosensitive nociceptor disorder. Med Hypotheses 2008;71:493–500.
3. Mowlem R. Hypertrophic scars. Br J Plast Surg 1951;4:113–20.
4. Fong EP, Bay BH. Keloids – the sebum hypothesis revisited. Med Hypotheses 2002;58:264–9.
5. Akaishi S, Ogawa R, Hyakusoku H. Keloid and hypertrophic scar: neurogenic inflammation hypotheses. Med Hypotheses 2008;71:32–8.
6. Cobbold CA. The role of nitric oxide in the formation of keloid and hypertrophic lesions. Med Hypotheses 2001;57:497–502.
7. Ogawa R, Akaishi S, Kuribayashi S, Miyashita T. Keloids and hypertrophic scars can now be cured completely: recent progress in our understanding of the pathogenesis of keloids and hypertrophic scars and the most promising current therapeutic strategy. J Nippon Med Sch 2016;83:46–53.
8. Ogawa R, Akaishi S, Huang C, Dohi T, Aoki M, Omori Y, Koike S, Kobe K, Akimoto M, Hyakusoku H. Clinical applications of basic research that shows reducing skin tension could prevent and treat abnormal scarring: the importance of facial/subcutaneous tensile reduction sutures and flap surgery for keloid and hypertrophic scar reconstruction. J Nippon Med Sch 2011;78:68–76.
9. Huang C, Akaishi S, Ogawa R. Mechanosignaling pathways in cutaneous scarring. Arch Dermatol Res 2012;304:589–97.
10. Discher DE, Janmey P, Wang YL. Tissue cells feel and respond to the stiffness of their substrate. Science 2005;310:1139–43.
11. Murphy WL, McDevitt TC, Engler AJ. Materials as stem cell regulators. Nat Mater 2014;13:547–57.
12. Tilghman RW, Cowan CR, Mih JD, Koryakina Y, Gioeli D, Slack-Davis JK, Blackman BR, Tschumpe DJ, Parsons JT. Matrix rigidity regulates cancer cell growth and cellular phenotype. PLoS One 2010;5:e12905.
13. Ingber DE. Mechanical control of tissue growth: function follows form. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005;102:11571–2.
14. Alford PW, Nesmith AP, Seywerd JN, Grosberg A, Parker KK. Vascular smooth muscle contractility depends on cell shape. Integr Biol (Camb) 2011;3:1063–70.
15. Lee J, Abdeen AA, Wycislo KL, Fan TM, Kilian KA. Interfacial geometry dictates cancer cell tumorigenicity. Nat Mater 2016;15:856–62.
16. Zhao H, Li X, Zhao S, Zeng Y, Zhao L, Ding H, Sun W, Du Y. Microengineered in vitro model of cardiac fibrosis through modulating myofibroblast mechanotransduction. Biofabrication 2014;6:045009.
17. Lo CM, Wang HB, Dembo M, Wang YL. Cell movement is guided by the rigidity of the substrate. Biophys J 2000;79:144–52.
18. Mandeville JT, Lawson MA, Maxfield FR. Dynamic imaging of neutrophil migration in three dimensions: mechanical interactions between cells and matrix. J Leukoc Biol 1997;61:188–200.
19. Engler AJ, Sen S, Sweeney HL, Discher DE. Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell 2006;126:677–89.
20. Ghosh K, Pan Z, Guan E, Ge S, Liu Y, Nakamura T, Ren XD, Rafailovich M, Clark RA. Cell adaptation to a physiologically relevant ECM mimic with different viscoelastic properties. Biomaterials 2007;28:671–9.
21. Schrader J, Gordon-Walker TT, Aucott RL, van Deemter M, Quaas A, Walsh S, Benten D, Forbes SJ, Wells RG, Iredale JP. Matrix stiffness modulates proliferation, chemotherapeutic response, and dormancy in hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Hepatology 2011;53:1192–205.
22. John J, Quinlan AT, Silvestri C, Billiar K. Boundary stiffness regulates fibroblast behavior in collagen gels. Ann Biomed Eng 2010;38:658–73.
23. Aszódi A, Legate KR, Nakchbandi I, Fässler R. What mouse mutants teach us about extracellular matrix function. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 2006;22:591–621.
24. Checa S, Rausch MK, Petersen A, Kuhl E, Duda GN. The emergence of extracellular matrix mechanics and cell traction forces as important regulators of cellular self-organization. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 2015;14:1–13.
25. Paszek MJ, Zahir N, Johnson KR, Lakins JN, Rozenberg GI, Gefen A, Reinhart-King CA, Margulies SS, Dembo M, Boettiger D, Hammer DA, Weaver VM. Tensional homeostasis and the malignant phenotype. Cancer Cell 2005;8:241–54.
26. Levental KR, Yu H, Kass L, Lakins JN, Egeblad M, Erler JT, Fong SF, Csiszar K, Giaccia A, Weninger W, Yamauchi M, Gasser DL, Weaver VM. Matrix crosslinking forces tumor progression by enhancing integrin signaling. Cell 2009;139:891–906.
27. Cross SE, Jin YS, Rao J, Gimzewski JK. Nanomechanical analysis of cells from cancer patients. Nat Nanotechnol 2007;2:780–3.
28. Suresh S. Biomechanics and biophysics of cancer cells. Acta Biomater 2007;3:413–38.
29. Plodinec M, Loparic M, Monnier CA, Obermann EC, Zanetti-Dallenbach R, Oertle P, Hyotyla JT, Aebi U, Bentires-Alj M, Lim RY, Schoenenberger CA. The nanomechanical signature of breast cancer. Nat Nanotechnol 2012;7:757–65.
30. Akaishi S, Akimoto M, Ogawa R, Hyakusoku H. The relationship between keloid growth pattern and stretching tension: visual analysis using the finite element method. Ann Plast Surg 2008;60:445–51.
31. Lu F, Gao J, Ogawa R, Hyakusoku H, Ou C. Fas-mediated apoptotic signal transduction in keloid and hypertrophic scar. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;119:1714–21.
32. Huang C, Murphy GF, Akaishi S, Ogawa R. Keloids and hypertrophic scars: update and future directions. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2013;1:e25.
33. Goffin JM, Pittet P, Csucs G, Lussi JW, Meister JJ, Hinz B. Focal adhesion size controls tension-dependent recruitment of alpha-smooth muscle actin to stress fibers. J Cell Biol 2006;172:259–68.
34. Hinz B. Tissue stiffness, latent TGF-beta1 activation, and mechanical signal transduction: implications for the pathogenesis and treatment of fibrosis. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2009;11:120–6.
35. Engler AJ, Carag-Krieger C, Johnson CP, Raab M, Tang HY, Speicher DW, Sanger JW, Sanger JM, Discher DE. Embryonic cardiomyocytes beat best on a matrix with heart-like elasticity: scar-like rigidity inhibits beating. J Cell Sci 2008;121:3794–802.
36. Friedman DW, Boyd CD, Mackenzie JW, Norton P, Olson RM, Deak SB. Regulation of collagen gene expression in keloids and hypertrophic scars. J Surg Res 1993;55:214–22.
37. Ingber DE. Tensegrity-based mechanosensing from macro to micro. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2008;97:163–79.
38. Ingber DE. Mechanobiology and diseases of mechanotransduction. Ann Med 2003;35:564–77.
39. Canović EP, Seidl DT, Polio SR, Oberai AA, Barbone PE, Stamenović D, Smith ML. Biomechanical imaging of cell stiffness and prestress with subcellular resolution. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 2014;13:665–78.
40. Park CY, Tambe D, Alencar AM, Trepat X, Zhou EH, Millet E, Butler JP, Fredberg JJ. Mapping the cytoskeletal prestress. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2010;298:C1245–52.
41. Wang N, Tolić-Nørrelykke IM, Chen J, Mijailovich SM, Butler JP, Fredberg JJ, Stamenović D. Cell prestress. I. Stiffness and prestress are closely associated in adherent contractile cells. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2002;282:C606–16.
42. Ingber DE, Tensegrity II. How structural networks influence cellular information processing networks. J Cell Sci 2003;116:1397–408.
43. Fernández P, Pullarkat PA, Ott A. A master relation defines the nonlinear viscoelasticity of single fibroblasts. Biophys J 2006;90:3796–805.
44. Butcher DT, Alliston T, Weaver VM. A tense situation: forcing tumour progression. Nat Rev Cancer 2009;9:108–22.
45. Lopez JI, Mouw JK, Weaver VM. Biomechanical regulation of cell orientation and fate. Oncogene 2008;27:6981–93.
46. Féréol S, Fodil R, Laurent VM, Balland M, Louis B, Pelle G, Hénon S, Planus E, Isabey D. Prestress and adhesion site dynamics control cell sensitivity to extracellular stiffness. Biophys J 2009;96:2009–22.
47. Deitch EA, Wheelahan TM, Rose MP, Clothier J, Cotter J. Hypertrophic burn scars: analysis of variables. J Trauma 1983;23:895–8.
48. Louw L. Keloids in rural black South Africans. Part 1: general overview and essential fatty acid hypotheses for keloid formation and prevention. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 2000;63:237–45.
49. Solon J, Levental I, Sengupta K, Georges PC, Janmey PA. Fibroblast adaptation and stiffness matching to soft elastic substrates. Biophys J 2007;93:4453–61.
50. Fu J, Wang YK, Yang MT, Desai RA, Yu X, Liu Z, Chen CS. Mechanical regulation of cell function with geometrically modulated elastomeric substrates. Nat Methods 2010;7:733–6.
51. Harn HI, Wang YK, Hsu CK, Ho YT, Huang YW, Chiu WT, Lin HH, Cheng CM, Tang MJ. Mechanical coupling of cytoskeletal elasticity and force generation is crucial for understanding the migrating nature of keloid fibroblasts. Exp Dermatol 2015;24:579–84.
52. Syed F, Bayat A. Notch signaling pathway in keloid disease: enhanced fibroblast activity in a Jagged-1 peptide-dependent manner in lesional vs. extralesional fibroblasts. Wound Repair Regen 2012;20:688–706.
53. Ashcroft KJ, Syed F, Bayat A. Site-specific keloid fibroblasts alter the behaviour of normal skin and normal scar fibroblasts through paracrine signalling. PLoS One 2013;8:e75600.
54. Su J, Brau RR, Jiang X, Whitesides GM, Lange MJ, So PT. Geometric confinement influences cellular mechanical properties II – intracellular variances in polarized cells. Mol Cell Biomech 2007;4:105–18.
55. Riveline D, Zamir E, Balaban NQ, Schwarz US, Ishizaki T, Narumiya S, Kam Z, Geiger B, Bershadsky AD. Focal contacts as mechanosensors: externally applied local mechanical force induces growth of focal contacts by an mDia1-dependent and ROCK-independent mechanism. J Cell Biol 2001;153:1175–86.
56. Chen CS, Mrksich M, Huang S, Whitesides GM, Ingber DE. Geometric control of cell life and death. Science 1997;276:1425–8.
57. Ogawa R, Okai K, Tokumura F, Mori K, Ohmori Y, Huang C, Hyakusoku H, Akaishi S. The relationship between skin stretching/contraction and pathologic scarring: the important role of mechanical forces in keloid generation. Wound Repair Regen 2012;20:149–57.
58. Obokata H, Wakayama T, Sasai Y, Kojima K, Vacanti MP, Niwa H, Yamato M, Vacanti CA. Stimulus-triggered fate conversion of somatic cells into pluripotency. Nature 2014;505:641–7.
59. Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M, Narita M, Ichisaka T, Tomoda K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 2007;131:861–72.
60. Erler JT, Giaccia AJ. Lysyl oxidase mediates hypoxic control of metastasis. Cancer Res 2006;66:10238–41.
61. Shiu YT, Weiss JA, Hoying JB, Iwamoto MN, Joung IS, Quam CT. The role of mechanical stresses in angiogenesis. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 2005;33:431–510.
62. Kim SJ, Wan Q, Cho E, Han B, Yoder MC, Voytik-Harbin SL, Na S. Matrix rigidity regulates spatiotemporal dynamics of Cdc42 activity and vacuole formation kinetics of endothelial colony forming cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2014;443:1280–5.
63. Sieminski AL, Hebbel RP, Gooch KJ. The relative magnitudes of endothelial force generation and matrix stiffness modulate capillary morphogenesis in vitro. Exp Cell Res 2004;297:574–84.
64. Fischer RS, Gardel M, Ma X, Adelstein RS, Waterman CM. Local cortical tension by myosin II guides 3D endothelial cell branching. Curr Biol 2009;19:260–5.
65. Sieminski AL, Was AS, Kim G, Gong H, Kamm RD. The stiffness of three-dimensional ionic self-assembling peptide gels affects the extent of capillary-like network formation. Cell Biochem Biophys 2007;49:73–83.
66. Kniazeva E, Putnam AJ. Endothelial cell traction and ECM density influence both capillary morphogenesis and maintenance in 3-D. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2009;297:C179–87.
67. Peyton SR, Kim PD, Ghajar CM, Seliktar D, Putnam AJ. The effects of matrix stiffness and RhoA on the phenotypic plasticity of smooth muscle cells in a 3-D biosynthetic hydrogel system. Biomaterials 2008;29:2597–607.
68. Korff T, Augustin HG. Tensional forces in fibrillar extracellular matrices control directional capillary sprouting. J Cell Sci 1999;112:3249–58.
69. Mammoto A, Connor KM, Mammoto T, Yung CW, Huh D, Aderman CM, Mostoslavsky G, Smith LE, Ingber DE. A mechanosensitive transcriptional mechanism that controls angiogenesis. Nature 2009;457:1103–8.
70. Oakes PW, Patel DC, Morin NA, Zitterbart DP, Fabry B, Reichner JS, Tang JX. Neutrophil morphology and migration are affected by substrate elasticity. Blood 2009;114:1387–95.
71. Mueller S, Sandrin L. Liver stiffness: a novel parameter for the diagnosis of liver disease. Hepat Med 2010;2:49–67.
72. Wang G, Mao W, Byler R, Patel K, Henegar C, Alexeev A, Sulchek T. Stiffness dependent separation of cells in a microfluidic device. PLoS One 2013;8:e75901.
73. de Oliveira GV, Nunes TA, Magna LA, Cintra ML, Kitten GT, Zarpellon S, Raposo Do Amaral CM. Silicone versus nonsilicone gel dressings: a controlled trial. Dermatol Surg 2001;27:721–6.