Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28928444›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Immortalized N/TERT keratinocytes as an alternative cell source in 3D human epidermal models.

Jos P H Smits, Hanna Niehues, Gijs Rikken, Ivonne M J J van Vlijmen-Willems, Guillaume W H J F van de Zande, Patrick L J M Zeeuwen, Joost Schalkwijk, Ellen H van den Bogaard

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 136 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
136citing papers in PubMed
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

136 citing papers in PubMed, 198 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Therapeutic responses toScience translational medicine · 2020
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Contribution of HMGB1 to keratinocyte inflammation in recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

76 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jos P H SmitsDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences (RIMLS), Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc), PO BOX 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0915-8624
Hanna NiehuesDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences (RIMLS), Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc), PO BOX 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Gijs RikkenDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences (RIMLS), Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc), PO BOX 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ivonne M J J van Vlijmen-WillemsDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences (RIMLS), Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc), PO BOX 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Guillaume W H J F van de ZandeDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc), PO BOX 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Patrick L J M ZeeuwenDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences (RIMLS), Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc), PO BOX 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Joost SchalkwijkDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences (RIMLS), Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc), PO BOX 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ellen H van den BogaardDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences (RIMLS), Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc), PO BOX 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. ellen.vandenbogaard@radboudumc.nl.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The strong societal urge to reduce the use of experimental animals, and the biological differences between rodent and human skin, have led to the development of alternative models for healthy and diseased human skin. However, the limited availability of primary keratinocytes to generate such models hampers large-scale implementation of skin models in biomedical, toxicological, and pharmaceutical research. Immortalized cell lines may overcome these issues, however, few immortalized human keratinocyte cell lines are available and most do not form a fully stratified epithelium. In this study we compared two immortalized keratinocyte cell lines (N/TERT1, N/TERT2G) to human primary keratinocytes based on epidermal differentiation, response to inflammatory mediators, and the development of normal and inflammatory human epidermal equivalents (HEEs). Stratum corneum permeability, epidermal morphology, and expression of epidermal differentiation and host defence genes and proteins in N/TERT-HEE cultures was similar to that of primary human keratinocytes. We successfully generated N/TERT-HEEs with psoriasis or atopic dermatitis features and validated these models for drug-screening purposes. We conclude that the N/TERT keratinocyte cell lines are useful substitutes for primary human keratinocytes thereby providing a biologically relevant, unlimited cell source for in vitro studies on epidermal biology, inflammatory skin disease pathogenesis and therapeutics.

Indexed as

Cell DifferentiationModels, BiologicalCell Line, TransformedEpidermisHumansKeratinocytesSpheroids, CellularTelomeraseTelomeraseTERT protein, human

Identifiers

PMID28928444
PMCPMC5605545
OpenAlexW2755555321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.