Casimiro Gerarduzzi1,2, John A Di Battista3. 1. Renal Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Institutes of Medicine, Rm 510, 77 Louis Pasteur Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. cgerarduzzi@post.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Medicine and Experimental Medicine, McGill University and the Division of Rheumatology, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre Research Institute, 1001 Decarie Boul., Montréal, QC, H4A 3J1, Canada. cgerarduzzi@post.harvard.edu. 3. Department of Medicine and Experimental Medicine, McGill University and the Division of Rheumatology, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre Research Institute, 1001 Decarie Boul., Montréal, QC, H4A 3J1, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Fibrosis is a complex chronic disease characterized by a persistent repair response. Its pathogenesis is poorly understood but it is typically the result of chronic inflammation and maintained with the required activity of transforming growth factor-β (TGFβ) and extracellular matrix (ECM) tension, both of which drive fibroblasts to transition into a myofibroblast phenotype. FINDINGS: As the effector cells of repair, myofibroblasts migrate to the site of injury to deposit excessive amounts of matrix proteins and stimulate high levels of contraction. Myofibroblast activity is a decisive factor in whether a tissue is properly repaired by controlled wound healing or rendered fibrotic by deregulated repair. Extensive studies have documented the various contributing factors to an abrogated repair response. Though these fibrotic factors are known, very little is understood about the opposing antifibrotic molecules that assist in a successful repair, such as prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and ECM retraction. The following review will discuss the general development of fibrosis through the transformation of myofibroblasts, focusing primarily on the prominent profibrotic pathways of TGFβ and ECM tension and antifibrotic pathways of PGE2 and ECM retraction. CONCLUSIONS: The idea is to understand the ways in which the cell, after an injury and inflammatory response, normally controls its repair mechanisms through its homeostatic regulators so as to mimic them therapeutically to control abnormal pathways.
INTRODUCTION:Fibrosis is a complex chronic disease characterized by a persistent repair response. Its pathogenesis is poorly understood but it is typically the result of chronic inflammation and maintained with the required activity of transforming growth factor-β (TGFβ) and extracellular matrix (ECM) tension, both of which drive fibroblasts to transition into a myofibroblast phenotype. FINDINGS: As the effector cells of repair, myofibroblasts migrate to the site of injury to deposit excessive amounts of matrix proteins and stimulate high levels of contraction. Myofibroblast activity is a decisive factor in whether a tissue is properly repaired by controlled wound healing or rendered fibrotic by deregulated repair. Extensive studies have documented the various contributing factors to an abrogated repair response. Though these fibrotic factors are known, very little is understood about the opposing antifibrotic molecules that assist in a successful repair, such as prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and ECM retraction. The following review will discuss the general development of fibrosis through the transformation of myofibroblasts, focusing primarily on the prominent profibrotic pathways of TGFβ and ECM tension and antifibrotic pathways of PGE2 and ECM retraction. CONCLUSIONS: The idea is to understand the ways in which the cell, after an injury and inflammatory response, normally controls its repair mechanisms through its homeostatic regulators so as to mimic them therapeutically to control abnormal pathways.
Authors: James J Tomasek; Giulio Gabbiani; Boris Hinz; Christine Chaponnier; Robert A Brown Journal: Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 94.444
Authors: T Kohyama; R F Ertl; V Valenti; J Spurzem; M Kawamoto; Y Nakamura; T Veys; L Allegra; D Romberger; S I Rennard Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: C B Keerthisingam; R G Jenkins; N K Harrison; N A Hernandez-Rodriguez; H Booth; G J Laurent; S L Hart; M L Foster; R J McAnulty Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: C Vancheri; M A Sortino; V Tomaselli; C Mastruzzo; F Condorelli; G Bellistrí; M P Pistorio; P L Canonico; N Crimi Journal: Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 6.914
Authors: Jill E Kolodsick; Marc Peters-Golden; Jose Larios; Galen B Toews; Victor J Thannickal; Bethany B Moore Journal: Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol Date: 2003-05-08 Impact factor: 6.914
Authors: E A Ham; D D Soderman; M E Zanetti; H W Dougherty; E McCauley; F A Kuehl Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1983-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Ronald B Driesen; Chandan K Nagaraju; Joëlle Abi-Char; Tamara Coenen; Paul J Lijnen; Robert H Fagard; Karin R Sipido; Victor V Petrov Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2013-12-23 Impact factor: 10.787
Authors: Hiam Abdala-Valencia; Mackenzie E Coden; Sergio E Chiarella; Elizabeth A Jacobsen; Bruce S Bochner; James J Lee; Sergejs Berdnikovs Journal: J Leukoc Biol Date: 2018-04-14 Impact factor: 4.962
Authors: David G Menter; Scott Kopetz; Ernest Hawk; Anil K Sood; Jonathan M Loree; Paolo Gresele; Kenneth V Honn Journal: Cancer Metastasis Rev Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 9.264
Authors: Christopher Cherry; David R Maestas; Jin Han; James I Andorko; Patrick Cahan; Elana J Fertig; Lana X Garmire; Jennifer H Elisseeff Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 25.671
Authors: Lívia A Tavares; Allan A Rezende; Jymmys L Santos; Charles S Estevam; Ana M O Silva; Jaderson K Schneider; John L S Cunha; Daniela Droppa-Almeida; Ivan J Correia-Neto; Juliana C Cardoso; Patricia Severino; Eliana B Souto; Ricardo L C de Albuquerque-Júnior Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2021-05-09 Impact factor: 6.321