Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Regulation of Wound Healing by the NRF2 Transcription Factor-More Than Cytoprotection

Hiebert P., Werner S.

Narrative Review on Chronic Wound, published in Int J Mol Sci (2019) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Narrative Review
Journal
Int J Mol Sci (2019)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
31398789
PMCID
PMC6720615
DOI
10.3390/ijms20163856
Citations
52

Abstract (original English)

The nuclear factor-erythroid 2-related factor 2 (NRF2) transcription factor plays a central role in mediating the cellular stress response. Due to their antioxidant properties, compounds activating NRF2 have received much attention as potential medications for disease prevention, or even for therapy. Accumulating evidence suggests that activation of the NRF2 pathway also has a major impact on wound healing and may be beneficial in the treatment of chronic wounds, which remain a considerable health and economic burden. While NRF2 activation indeed shows promise, important considerations need to be made in light of corresponding evidence that also points towards pro-tumorigenic effects of NRF2. In this review, we discuss the evidence to date, highlighting recent advances using gain- and loss-of-function animal models and how these data fit with observations in humans.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
FibroblastsKeratinocytesAnimalsHumansCell Transformation, NeoplasticWound HealingGene Expression RegulationOxidative StressCytoprotectionPhenotype

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research