Chromatin accessibility profiling reveals that human fibroblasts respond to mechanical stimulation in a cell-specific manner
Logan NJ., Broda KL., Pantelireis N., Williams G., Higgins CA.
Animal Study, published in JBMR Plus (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Animal Study
- Journal
- JBMR Plus (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 38682000
- PMCID
- PMC11055960
- DOI
- 10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae025
- Citations
- 1
Abstract (original English)
Fibroblasts in the skin are highly heterogeneous, both in vivo and in vitro. One difference between follicular (dermal papilla fibroblasts [DP]) and interfollicular fibroblasts (papillary fibroblasts [PFi]) in vitro is their ability to differentiate in response to osteogenic media (OM), or mechanical stimulation. Here, we asked whether differences in the ability of DP and PFi to respond to differentiation stimuli are due to differences in chromatin accessibility. We performed chromatin accessibility and transcriptional profiling of DP and PFi in human skin, which arise from a common progenitor during development, yet display distinct characteristics in adult tissue and in vitro. We found that cells cultured in growth media had unique chromatin accessibility profiles; however, these profiles control similar functional networks. Upon introduction of a chemical perturbation (OM) to promote differentiation, we observed a divergence not only in the accessible chromatin signatures but also in the functional networks controlled by these signatures. The biggest divergence between DP and PFi was observed when we applied 2 perturbations to cells: growth in OM and mechanical stimulation (a shock wave [OMSW]). DP readily differentiate into bone in OMSW conditions, while PFi lack differentiation capability in vitro. In the DP we found a number of uniquely accessible promoters that controlle
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.