Revealing the basic mechanisms in the healing process and then regulating these processes for faster healing or to avoid negative outcomes such as infection or scarring are fundamental to wound research. The normal healing process is basically known, but to thoroughly understand the very complex aspects involved, it is necessary to characterize the course of events at a higher resolution with the latest molecular techniques and methodologies.
Recent Advances:
Various animal models are used in wound-healing research. Rodent and pig models are the ones most often used, probably because of pre-existing sophisticated research methodologies and as the proper care and ethical use of these species are highly developed and organized to serve science throughout the world.
Critical Issues:
Since several animal models are used, their anatomical and physiological differences varyingly affect the translation of results on healing mechanisms. Hence, to avoid species-specific misinformation, more ways to study wound healing directly in humans are needed.
Future Directions:
Fortunately, novel techniques have enabled high-end molecular-level research even from small samples of tissue. Since these methods require only a small amount of patient skin, they make it possible to study wound healing directly in humans.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PercivalNJ: Classification of wounds and their management. Surgery, 2002; 20: 114.
2.
MooreFA, SauaiaA, MooreEE, HaenelJB, BurchJM, and LezotteDC: Postinjury multiple organ failure: a bimodal phenomenon. J Trauma, 1996; 40: 501.
3.
GurtnerGC, WernerS, BarrandonY, and LongakerMT: Wound repair and regeneration. Nature, 2008; 453: 314.
AfsharM and GalloRL: Innate immune defense system of the skin. Vet Dermatol, 2013; 24: 32.
6.
SchweizerML and HerwaldtLA: Surgical site infections and their prevention. Curr Opin Infect Dis, 2012; 25: 378.
7.
SenCK, GordilloGM, RoyS, KirsnerR, LambertL, HuntTK, GottrupF, GurtnerGC, and LongakerMT: Human skin wounds: a major and snowballing threat to public health and the economy. Wound Repair Regen, 2009; 17: 763.
8.
MustoeTA, O'ShaughnessyK, and KloetersO: Chronic wound pathogenesis and current treatment strategies: a unifying hypothesis. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2006; 117: 35S.
9.
BronaughRL, StewartRF, and CongdonER: Methods for in vitro percutaneous absorption studies. II. Animal models for human skin. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 1982; 62: 481.
10.
Dorsett-MartinWA: Rat models of skin wound healing: a review. Wound Repair Regen, 2004; 12: 591.
11.
SullivanTP, EaglsteinWH, DavisSC, and MertzP: The pig as a model for human wound healing. Wound Repair Regen, 2001; 9: 66.
12.
RittiéL, SachsDL, OrringerJS, VoorheesJJ, and FisherGJ: Eccrine sweat glands are major contributors to reepithelialization of human wounds. Am J Pathol, 2013; 182: 163.
13.
GottrupF: Controversies in performing a randomized control trial and a systemic review. Wound Repair Regen, 2012; 20: 447.
14.
GottrupF, ApelqvistJ, and PriceP; European Wound Management Association Patient Outcome Group: Outcomes in controlled and comparative studies on non-healing wounds: recommendations to improve the quality of evidence in wound management. J Wound Care, 2010; 19: 237.
15.
EskesAM, BrölmannFE, SumpioBE, MayerD, MooreZ, AgrenMS, HermansM, CuttingK, LegemateDA, UbbinkDT, and VermeulenH: Fundamentals of randomized clinical trials in wound care: design and conduct. Wound Repair Regen, 2012; 20: 449.
16.
ShawTJ and MartinP: Wound repair at a glance. J Cell Sci, 2009; 122: 3209.
17.
SchäferM and WernerS: Transcriptional control of wound repair. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol, 2007; 23: 69.
18.
SmileyAK, KlingenbergJM, AronowBJ, BoyceST, KitzmillerWJ, and SuppDM: Microarray analysis of gene expression in cultured skin substitutes compared with native human skin. J Invest Dermatol, 2005; 125: 1286.
19.
ChenL, ArbievaZH, GuoS, MaruchaPT, MustoeTA, and DiPietroLA: Positional differences in the wound transcriptome of skin and oral mucosa. BMC Genomics, 2010; 11: 471.
20.
GrecoJA, PollinsAC, BooneBE, LevySE, and NanneyLB: A microarray analysis of temporal gene expression profiles in thermally injured skin. Burns, 2010; 36: 192.
van de VijverMJ, HeYD, van't VeerLJ, DaiH, HartAA, VoskuilDW, SchreiberGJ, PeterseJL, RobertsC, MartonMJ, ParrishM, AtsmaD, WitteveenA, GlasA, DelahayeL, van der VeldeT, BartelinkH, RodenhuisS, RutgersET, FriendSH, and BernardsR: A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med, 2002; 347: 1999.
23.
NuutilaK, SiltanenA, PeuraM, BizikJ, KaartinenI, KuokkanenH, NieminenT, HarjulaA, AarnioP, VuolaJ, and KankuriE: Human skin transcriptome during superficial cutaneous wound healing. Wound Repair Regen, 2012; 20: 830.
24.
NuutilaK, SiltanenA, PeuraM, HarjulaA, NieminenT, VuolaJ, KankuriE, and AarnioP: Gene expression profiling of negative-pressure-treated skin graft donor site wounds. Burns, 2013; 39: 687.
BuganimY, FaddahDA, ChengAW, ItskovichE, MarkoulakiS, GanzK, KlemmSL, van OudenaardenA, and JaenischR: Single-cell expression analyses during cellular reprogramming reveal an early stochastic and a late hierarchic phase. Cell, 2012; 150: 1209.
27.
TanDWM, JensenKB, TrotterMWB, ConnellyJT, BroadS, and WattFM: Single-cell gene expression profiling reveals functional heterogeneity of undifferentiated human epidermal cells. Development, 2013; 140: 1433.
28.
TangF, LaoK, and SuraniMA: Development and applications of single-cell transcriptome analysis. Nat Methods, 2011; 8: S6.
29.
IslamS, KjällquistU, MolinerA, ZajacP, FanJ-B, LönnerbergP, and LinnarssonS: Characterization of the single-cell transcriptional landscape by highly multiplex RNA-seq. Genome Res, 2011; 21: 1160.
30.
HashimshonyT, WagnerF, SherN, and YanaiI: CEL-Seq: single-cell RNA-seq by multiplexed linear amplification. Cell Rep, 2012; 2: 666.
31.
RajA and van OudenaardenA: Nature, nurture, or chance: stochastic gene expression and its consequences. Cell, 2008; 135: 216.
32.
IslamS, KjällquistU, MolinerA, ZajacP, FanJ-B, LönnerbergP, and LinnarssonS: Highly multiplexed and strand-specific single-cell RNA 5′ end sequencing. Nat Protoc, 2012; 7: 813.
33.
ThellinO, ZorziW, LakayeB, De BormanB, CoumansB, HennenG, GrisarT, IgoutA, and HeinenE: Housekeeping genes as internal standards: use and limits. J Biotechnol, 1999; 75: 291.
34.
StürzenbaumSR and KilleP: Control genes in quantitative molecular biological techniques: the variability of invariance. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol, 2001; 130: 281.
35.
MinnerF and PoumayY: Candidate housekeeping genes require evaluation before their selection for studies of human epidermal keratinocytes. J Invest Dermatol, 2009; 129: 770.
36.
BolstadBM, IrizarryRA, AstrandM, and SpeedTP: A comparison of normalization methods for high density oligonucleotide array data based on variance and bias. Bioinformatics, 2003; 19: 185.
BullardJH, PurdomE, HansenKD, and DudoitS: Evaluation of statistical methods for normalization and differential expression in mRNA-Seq experiments. BMC Bioinformatics, 2010; 11: 94.
39.
TsengGC, OhMK, RohlinL, LiaoJC, and WongWH: Issues in cDNA microarray analysis: quality filtering, channel normalization, models of variations and assessment of gene effects. Nucleic Acids Res, 2001; 29: 2549.
40.
RobinsonMD and OshlackA: A scaling normalization method for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data. Genome Biol, 2010; 11: R25.
41.
AndersS and HuberW: Differential expression analysis for sequence count data. Genome Biol, 2010; 11: R106.
42.
LiJ, WittenDM, JohnstoneIM, and TibshiraniR: Normalization, testing, and false discovery rate estimation for RNA-sequencing data. Biostatistics, 2011; 13: 523.
43.
Staiano-CoicoL, HigginsPJ, DarzynkiewiczZ, KimmelM, GottliebAB, Pagan-CharryI, MaddenMR, FinkelsteinJL, and HeftonJM: Human keratinocyte culture. Identification and staging of epidermal cell subpopulations. J Clin Invest, 1986; 77: 396.
44.
DobsonAT, RajaR, AbeytaMJ, TaylorT, ShenS, HaqqC, and PeraRA: The unique transcriptome through day 3 of human preimplantation development. Hum Mol Genet, 2004; 13: 1461.
45.
CarterMG, SharovAA, VanBurenV, DudekulaDB, CarmackCE, NelsonC, and KoMS: Transcript copy number estimation using a mouse whole-genome oligonucleotide microarray. Genome Biol, 2005; 6: R61.
46.
LovénJ, OrlandoDA, SigovaAA, LinCY, RahlPB, BurgeCB, LevensDL, LeeTI, and YoungRA: Revisiting global gene expression analysis. Cell, 2012; 151: 476.
47.
KatayamaS, TöhönenV, LinnarssonS, and KereJ: SAMstrt: statistical test for differential expression in single-cell transcriptome with spike-in normalization. Bioinformatics, 2013; 29: 2943.
