ArticleEplasty2010
Identification of novel keloid biomarkers through profiling of tissue biopsies versus cell cultures in keloid margin specimens compared to adjacent normal skin.
Article in Eplasty, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Objective assessment of dermal fibrosis in cutaneous scarring, using optical coherence tomography, high-frequency ultrasound and immunohistomorphometry of human skin.The British journal of dermatology · 2019Trial
- Decoding elastin-collagen resemblance in keloid scar through label-free imaging and machine learning.Journal of biomedical optics · 2026Article
- Identification of nanoparticle-mediated siRNA-ASPN as a key gene target in the treatment of keloids.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Immunological mechanisms of scarring and their psychological impact on patients.American journal of clinical and experimental immunology · 2021Review
- Inhibition of growth of Asian keloid cells with human umbilical cord Wharton's jelly stem cell-conditioned medium.Stem cell research & therapy · 2020Article
- RNA Sequencing Keloid Transcriptome Associates Keloids With Th2, Th1, Th17/Th22, and JAK3-Skewing.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Article
- Cartilage-like composition of keloid scar extracellular matrix suggests fibroblast mis-differentiation in disease.Matrix biology plus · 2019Article
- Small Leucine-Rich Proteoglycans in Skin Wound Healing.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Review
- Aberrant connective tissue differentiation towards cartilage and bone underlies human keloids in African Americans.Experimental dermatology · 2017Article
- Association of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and vitamin D receptor expression with the risk of keloid disease in a Chinese population.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2017Article
- Site-specific gene expression profiling as a novel strategy for unravelling keloid disease pathobiology.PloS one · 2017Article
- Knockdown of asporin affects transforming growth factor-β1-induced matrix synthesis in human intervertebral annulus cells.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2016Article
- Proteoglycans in Normal and Healing Skin.Advances in wound care · 2015Article
- Transcriptional profiling of rapamycin-treated fibroblasts from hypertrophic and keloid scars.Annals of plastic surgery · 2014Article
- Site-specific keloid fibroblasts alter the behaviour of normal skin and normal scar fibroblasts through paracrine signalling.PloS one · 2013Article
- Identification and characterization of cartilage oligomeric matrix protein as a novel pathogenic factor in keloids.The American journal of pathology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveKeloid disease (KD) is a benign fibroproliferative skin tumor that results from abnormal wound healing and has no single definitive treatment. This study aims to identify KD biomarkers, which are cellular mediators that can serve as indicators of normal, pathological, and therapeutic processes.
methodsBioinformatics analytic approaches, including comprehensive literature searches and DAVID Bioinformatics Resources 2008, were performed on the established KD linkage and previously reported microarray data to identify potential candidate genes for the study. Keloid margins and unaffected skin were obtained from KD patients (n = 4). RNA was extracted from the biopsies and second-passage culture equivalents. Reverse-transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reactions were used to determine the gene expression levels. Student t tests were used to analyze the statistical significance in differential gene expressions.
resultsNineteen candidate genes were initially selected by bioinformatics analysis. Of the 19 genes, 10 were significantly (P < .05) upregulated in keloid margin biopsy specimens. The top-5 fold changes range from 10-fold to 175-fold, including aggrecan; asporin; inhibin, beta A; tumor necrosis factor-alpha inducible protein 6; and chromosome 5 open reading frame 13. There was no significant differential gene expression between the fibroblasts established using keloid margin or internal control sites.
conclusionsThe transcriptomic data generated from cultures did not consistently correlate to the biopsy equivalents. This study has demonstrated 10 genes that are significantly upregulated in biopsy samples of keloid margin, 5 of which have a fold change higher than 10-fold. Importantly these genes may serve as a potential biomarker for KD.
Identifiers
20418938PMC2851107W1552427459What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.