Dorothy M Supp1,2, Jennifer M Hahn1, Kelly A Combs1, Kevin L McFarland1, Ann Schwentker3, Raymond E Boissy4, Steven T Boyce1,2, Heather M Powell1,5,6, Anne W Lucky7. 1. Research Department, Shriners Hospitals for Children - Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 3. Division of Plastic Surgery, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 4. Department of Dermatology, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 5. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 6. Department of Biomedical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 7. Division of Dermatology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Abstract
The blistering disease recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB) is caused by mutations in the gene encoding collagen VII (COL7), which forms anchoring fibrils that attach the epidermis to the dermis. Cutaneous gene therapy to restore COL7 expression in RDEB patient cells has been proposed, and cultured epithelial autograft containing COL7-modified keratinocytes was previously tested in clinical trials. Because COL7 in normal skin is expressed in both fibroblasts and keratinocytes, cutaneous gene therapy using a bilayer skin substitute may enable faster restoration of anchoring fibrils. Hypothetically, COL7 expression in either dermal fibroblasts or epidermal keratinocytes might be sufficient for functional anchoring fibril formation in a bilayer skin substitute. To test this, engineered skin substitutes (ESS) were prepared using four combinations of normal + RDEB cells: (1) RDEB fibroblasts + RDEB keratinocytes; (2) RDEB fibroblasts + normal keratinocytes; (3) normal fibroblasts + RDEB keratinocytes; and (4) normal fibroblasts + normal keratinocytes. ESS were incubated in vitro for 2 weeks prior to grafting to full-thickness wounds in immunodeficient mice. Biopsies were analyzed in vitro and at 1, 2, or 3 weeks after grafting. COL7 was undetectable in ESS prepared using all RDEB cells (group 1), and macroscopic blistering was observed by 2 weeks after grafting in ESS containing RDEB cells. COL7 was expressed, in vitro and in vivo, in ESS prepared using combinations of normal + RDEB cells (groups 2 and 3) or all normal cells (group 4). However, transmission electron microscopy revealed structurally normal anchoring fibrils, in vitro and by week 2 in vivo, only in ESS prepared using all normal cells (group 4). The results suggest that although COL7 protein is produced in engineered skin when cells in only one layer express the COL7 gene, formation of structurally normal anchoring fibrils appears to require expression of COL7 in both dermal fibroblasts and epidermal keratinocytes.
The blistering disease recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB) is caused by mutations in the gene encoding collagen VII (COL7), which forms anchoring fibrils that attach the epidermis to the dermis. Cutaneous gene therapy to restore COL7 expression in RDEB patient cells has been proposed, and cultured epithelial autograft containing COL7-modified keratinocytes was previously tested in clinical trials. Because COL7 in normal skin is expressed in both fibroblasts and keratinocytes, cutaneous gene therapy using a bilayer skin substitute may enable faster restoration of anchoring fibrils. Hypothetically, COL7 expression in either dermal fibroblasts or epidermal keratinocytes might be sufficient for functional anchoring fibril formation in a bilayer skin substitute. To test this, engineered skin substitutes (ESS) were prepared using four combinations of normal + RDEB cells: (1) RDEB fibroblasts + RDEB keratinocytes; (2) RDEB fibroblasts + normal keratinocytes; (3) normal fibroblasts + RDEB keratinocytes; and (4) normal fibroblasts + normal keratinocytes. ESS were incubated in vitro for 2 weeks prior to grafting to full-thickness wounds in immunodeficientmice. Biopsies were analyzed in vitro and at 1, 2, or 3 weeks after grafting. COL7 was undetectable in ESS prepared using all RDEB cells (group 1), and macroscopic blistering was observed by 2 weeks after grafting in ESScontaining RDEB cells. COL7 was expressed, in vitro and in vivo, in ESS prepared using combinations of normal + RDEB cells (groups 2 and 3) or all normal cells (group 4). However, transmission electron microscopy revealed structurally normal anchoring fibrils, in vitro and by week 2 in vivo, only in ESS prepared using all normal cells (group 4). The results suggest that although COL7 protein is produced in engineered skin when cells in only one layer express the COL7 gene, formation of structurally normal anchoring fibrils appears to require expression of COL7 in both dermal fibroblasts and epidermal keratinocytes.
The inherited blistering disease recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB),
characterized by lack of adhesion of the epidermis to the dermis, is caused by mutations in
the collagen VII gene (COL7A1)[1]. Type VII collagen protein (COL7) is secreted by both fibroblasts and keratinocytes
to form anchoring fibrils that attach the dermis to the basement membrane zone[1]. Absence of functional anchoring fibrils results in fragile skin that easily shears
and blisters. RDEB affects approximately 25,000 people worldwide, and is associated with a
70% risk of death by age 40 due to manifestations of the disease, including metastatic
squamous cell carcinoma (SCC)[2]. The absence of collagen VII has been linked to changes in the extracellular
microenvironment that promote development of SCC[3]. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop therapies that restore collagen VII
expression to reduce skin blistering as well as decrease SCC incidence in patients with
RDEB.There is currently no cure for RDEB, and no truly effective treatment beyond management of
symptoms. The demand for long-term solutions has fueled investigations into advanced
therapies, including cell and protein-based therapies, as well as gene therapies[2,4,5]. Multiple preclinical studies exploring gene therapy approaches for epidermolysis
bullosa have been published, and a limited number of clinical trials have been undertaken[6-8]. In an ex vivo gene therapy trial, retroviral COL7A1 gene transfer
was used for genetic modification of autologous keratinocytes, which were transplanted to
RDEB patient wounds as cultured epithelial autograft (CEA)[8]. Results in four RDEB patients, who were each treated with six
COL7A1-modified epidermal grafts, indicated that all 24 grafts were well
tolerated and no serious adverse reactions were observed[8]. Collagen VII expression and improved healing were observed in a majority of grafts
at 3 months after transplantation, but the response was variable and declined over the
1-year observation period[8]. Coincident with this, anchoring fibrils were observed in 71% of biopsies at 3
months, but only in 33% of biopsies at 6 months and 25% of biopsies at 12 months[8]. It was speculated that the decline in healing over time may have resulted from a
reduced number of stem cells in the patient skin biopsies, or that the corrected cells in
the grafts were out-competed by uncorrected cells in the wound bed[8,9].A recent report described successful cutaneous gene therapy for a 7-year-old patient with
junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB)[7]. The patient had a homozygous mutation in the gene encoding laminin β3
(LAMB3), which is a subunit of laminin-332, an essential part of the
dermal–epidermal junction that links anchoring fibrils to the basement membrane. Autologous
keratinocytes, modified by retroviral gene transfer to express a wild type
LAMB3 transgene, were cultured on fibrin and transplanted to wounds as
epidermal sheets. Grafting of the genetically modified CEA resulted in stable closure of
wounds covering approximately 80% of the patient’s total body surface area (TBSA). A
difference between the results observed in this study[7], which involved transplantation of LAMB3-modified keratinocytes for
wound closure in a patient with JEB, and the previous study involving grafting of
COL7A1-modified keratinocytes in RDEB patients[8], may be due to the fact that COL7A1 is expressed by both
keratinocytes and fibroblasts whereas LAMB3 is expressed only by keratinocytes. Long-term
wound closure in RDEB patients treated with COL7A1-modified CEA may be
hindered by absence of dermal fibroblasts expressing COL7A1.
Hypothetically, expression of COL7A1 in both fibroblasts and keratinocytes
may be required to facilitate early production of anchoring fibrils and stable wound
closure. This could be achieved using a bilayer dermal–epidermal skin substitute.In preclinical studies, correction of a COL7A1 mutation in RDEB
patient-derived keratinocytes and fibroblasts was achieved using CRISPR-based genome editing[10]. Although COL7A1 gene expression levels in edited fibroblasts and
keratinocytes were 15.7% and 11.0% of normal levels, respectively, anchoring fibrils were
observed in skin substitutes containing corrected cells after transplantation to
immunodeficientmice. However, the skin substitutes in that study were initially
transplanted under skin flaps in mice, rather than being grafted orthotopically to
full-thickness wounds[10,11]. Although this enabled formation of anchoring fibrils by 1 month after “deflapping,”
this type of surgical procedure would not be easily translated to RDEB patients. The current
study utilized engineered skin substitutes (ESS), a model that was previously evaluated in
clinical trials as an adjunctive treatment for patients with greater than 50% TBSA burns[12-14]. ESScontaining autologous fibroblasts and keratinocytes were shown to provide
stable, long-term wound closure in burn patients, with minimal need for regrafting and
negligible scarring[14]. This bilayer, organotypic skin model permits paracrine interactions between
fibroblasts and keratinocytes that promote rapid tissue maturation in vitro and long-term
graft stability after transplantation, including establishment of a basal stem cell
compartment, basement membrane deposition, and formation of anchoring fibrils[15-18]. The current study was undertaken to determine whether COL7 protein expression is
required in one or both layers of ESS for anchoring fibril formation and suppression of
blistering.
Materials and Methods
Isolation of Primary Fibroblasts and Keratinocytes
Skin samples used for establishing primary cultures were classified as “discard skin” by
the attending surgeons and were de-identified prior to delivery to the lab for cell
isolation. Normal skin was from a healthy 24-year-old plastic surgery patient, and RDEB
skin was from a 24-year-old RDEB patient. The University of Cincinnati Institutional
Review Board determined that collection of de-identified discard skin samples did not
constitute human subjects research and was therefore exempt from requirements for informed
consent. COL7A1 sequencing was performed by the Laboratory of Genetics and Genomics at
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center to confirm the clinical diagnosis of RDEB
(data not shown).Primary fibroblasts and keratinocytes were isolated from skin and cultured as detailed elsewhere[19-21], with slight modifications. Overnight incubation at 4°C in Dispase (Roche Life
Sciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA) was used to separate epidermis and dermis for the normal
skin sample; this step was omitted for the RDEB skin sample, as the epidermis and dermis
were easily separated without enzymatic digestion. Fibroblasts were cultured in Gibco™
DMEM (Low Glucose; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) supplemented with 10 ng/ml
epidermal growth factor (EGF; Peprotech, Rocky Hill, NJ, USA), 5 µg/ml humaninsulin
(Sigma-Aldrich; St. Louis, MO, USA), 0.5 mg/ml hydrocortisone (Sigma-Aldrich), 0.1 mM
ascorbic acid-2-phosphate (AA2P; Sigma-Aldrich), 4% fetal bovine serum (FBS; Thermo Fisher
Scientific), and 1× penicillin-streptomycin-fungizone (PSF; Thermo Fisher Scientific).
Keratinocyte medium consisted of modified MCDB153 prepared in-house[21] with 0.06 mM calcium chloride and supplemented with 0.2% bovine pituitary extract
(Hammond Cell Tech, Windsor, CA, USA), 1 ng/ml EGF, 5 µg/ml humaninsulin, 0.5 mg/ml
hydrocortisone, and 1× PSF. Flasks coated with collagen (Coating Matrix; Thermo Fisher
Scientific) were used to establish the primary keratinocyte cultures, but were not used
after keratinocytes were passaged; feeder cells were not used. All cells were harvested
when they reached 80–90% confluence and were cryopreserved in their respective growth
medium containing 10% dimethyl sulfoxide and 20% FBS using a controlled rate freezer.
Cells were recovered from liquid nitrogen storage using the same culture medium as for
initial culture except that the calcium chlorideconcentration of the keratinocyte medium
was increased to 0.2 mM. Cells were expanded through one additional passage prior to
preparation of engineered skin.
Preparation of ESS
ESS were prepared essentially as previously described[21]. Briefly, fibroblasts (0.5 × 106/cm2) were inoculated onto
sterile collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffolds supported at the air–liquid interface using
polyvinyl acetal sponges. Keratinocytes (1.0 × 106/cm2) were
inoculated onto the dermal substrates 24 h later and ESS were transferred to cotton pads
supported by perforated stainless steel platforms for incubation at the air–liquid
interface for 2 weeks (37°C, 5% CO2). Culture medium for ESSconsisted of
DMEM/F12 (Sigma-Aldrich) supplemented with 1 mM strontium chloride, 0.3% FBS, 1× ITS
Supplement (Sigma-Aldrich), 10 µg/ml linoleic acid, 0.1 mM AA2P, 20 pM triiodothyronine,
0.5 µg/ml hydrocortisone, 5 ng/ml keratinocyte growth factor (Peprotech), 1 ng/ml basic
fibroblast growth factor (Peprotech), and 1× PSF[19]. Four groups of grafts were prepared: group 1, RDEB fibroblasts and RDEB
keratinocytes; group 2, RDEB fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes; group 3, normal
fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes; and group 4, normal fibroblasts and normal
keratinocytes.
Grafting to Mice and Collection of Tissue Samples
Animal studies were performed with the approval of the University of Cincinnati (UC)
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and in accordance with UC IACUC
guidelines. Immunodeficientmice (NIH-III-nude strain; Charles River Laboratories,
Wilmington, MA, USA) were used (n = 32) to enable engraftment of ESScontaining human cells. A full-thickness wound (2 cm × 2 cm) was prepared on the flank of
each mouse, leaving the panniculus carnosus layer intact. ESS were cut to 2 cm × 2 cm
squares and were sutured to the wounds with an overlying piece of N-terface non-adherent
dressing (Winfield Laboratories, Richardson, TX, USA). Grafts were dressed with gauze
using tie-over stents; gauze was coated with antimicrobial ointment consisting of equal
parts Nystatin, Mupirocin, and Neosporin (Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.,
New Brunswick, NJ, USA). Dressings were covered with Tegaderm Transparent Film Dressing
(3M, St. Paul, MN, USA) and mice were wrapped with Coban self-adherent bandages (3M).
Dressings were removed at 2 weeks after surgery; mice that were not euthanized until 3
weeks after grafting remained without dressings from week 2 to week 3. Eight mice were
grafted for each group. Four mice died during the study period (two each in groups 3 and
4) and were excluded from the analysis. Two mice per group were euthanized at week 1. For
weeks 2 and 3, three mice/group were sacrificed for groups 1 and 2, and two mice/group for
groups 3 and 4. ESS were excised and multiple biopsies were collected for processing for
both histological sections and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Biopsies fixed in
10% formalin were processed, paraffin-embedded, sectioned, and stained with Tango stain
(catalog #852; Anatech Ltd., Battle Creek, MI, USA) by the Shriners Hospitals for Children
– Cincinnati Histology Special Shared Facility. For cryosections, biopsies were embedded
frozen using OCTCompound (Fisher HealthCare, Pittsburgh, PA, USA), and for TEM, biopsies
were fixed in Karnovsky’s fixative (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA, USA).
Quantitative Analysis of Blister Formation
To analyze blistering, multiple non-overlapping microscopic fields (2–9 per section) were
photographed at 10× magnification using a Nikon Microphot-FXA microscope (Nikon, Melville,
NY, USA) and Spot Digital Camera (Diagnostic Instruments, Inc., Sterling Heights, MI,
USA). For each image, the total length of the dermal–epidermal junction and the total
length of any blisters present at the dermal–epidermal junction were measured using Nikon
Elements software. Percent blistering was calculated using the formula: blister
length/total dermal–epidermal junction length × 100. Statistical analysis was performed
using SigmaStat version 13.0 (Systat Software, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA). Analyses of group
differences at each time point were performed using One Way Analysis of Variance on Ranks,
and pairwise comparisons at each time point were performed using the Rank Sum test; these
tests were used because the data were not normally distributed. Differences were
considered statistically significant at P < 0.05.
Immunohistochemistry
Localization of specific antigens in cryosections was performed by immunohistochemistry
using routine procedures. COL7 detection utilized a rabbit polyclonal antibody directed
against full-length humancollagen VII (catalog #ab93350; Abcam, Cambridge, MA, USA),
diluted 1:50 and incubated with sections overnight at 4°C, followed by a chicken
anti-Rabbit IgG (H+L) antibody labeled with Alexa Flour 488 (catalog #A21441; Thermo
Fisher Scientific), diluted 1:400 and incubated for 1 h at room temperature. A second
antibody specific for humanCOL7 was also used: a mouse monoclonal antibody against humancollagen VII (clone LH7.2; catalog #MAB1345; Sigma-Aldrich), which is directed against the
N-terminal portion of the protein[22], diluted 1:400 and incubated with sections for 30 min at room temperature. The
Mouse on Mouse (M.O.M.) Basic Kit (catalog # BMK-2202; Vector Laboratories, Burlingame,
CA, USA) was used to block background staining prior to use of a secondary anti-mouse
antibody in the in vivo ESS samples, which were excised from mice. This was followed by
incubation with a donkey anti-mouse IgG (H+L) antibody labeled with Alexa Fluor 594
(catalog #A21203, Thermo Fisher Scientific), diluted 1:400 and incubated for 30 min at
room temperature. Laminin detection was performed using a rat monoclonal antibody (catalog
#MBS570086; MyBioSource, San Diego, CA, USA), diluted 1:200 and incubated with sections
for 1 h at room temperature, followed by a donkey anti-rat IgG (H+L) antibody labeled with
Alexa Fluor 594 (catalog #SA5-10028, Thermo Fisher Scientific), diluted 1:400 and
incubated for 1 h at room temperature. Collagen IV was detected in sections using a rabbit
polyclonal antibody (catalog #507; Yo Proteins, Rönninge, Sweden), diluted 1:50 and
incubated overnight at 4°C, and humanE-cadherin was detected using a rabbit monoclonal
antibody (catalog #NB110-56937; Novus Biologicals, Centennial, CO, USA), diluted 1:100 and
incubated overnight at 4°C. Both were followed by the chicken anti-RabbitAlexa Fluor 488
antibody. Human keratinocytes in ESS were detected using a mouse monoclonal antibody
against human leukocyte antigen (HLA) ABC (clone W6/32 HLK; catalog #CLHLA-01F; Cedarlane
Laboratories, Burlington, NC, USA) directly conjugated to fluorescein isothiocyanate; the
antibody was diluted 1:50 and sections were incubated overnight at 4°C. This anti-HLA-ABC
antibody is directed against a common, non-polymorphic epitope of the HLA-A, B, and C
loci, according to information provided by the manufacturer, and was therefore used to
detect human cells in ESS after grafting to mice. Vectashield Antifade Mounting Medium
with 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI; catalog #H-1200, Vector Laboratories) was used
to mount coverslips and counterstain nuclei. Sections were viewed and photographed with an
Eclipse 90i microscope equipped with a DS-Ri1 Digital Microscope Camera (Nikon Instruments
Inc.). Z-stacking was used to improve depth of field of digital images, and all images for
a given antibody were collected using identical settings for each tissue section.
TEM
Biopsies of ESS were incubated overnight at 4°C in Karnovsky’s fixative (Electron
Microscopy Sciences) and then transferred to sodium cacodylate buffer, 0.2 M, pH 7.4
(Electron Microscopy Sciences). Tissue was post-fixed in 1% osmium tetroxidecontaining
1.5% potassium ferrocyanide. Following dehydration, tissues were embedded in Spurr resin
(Sigma-Aldrich), sectioned using a RMC-MT6000XL ultramicrotome (RMC Inc., Tucson, AZ,
USA), and stained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate. Sections were viewed and selected
images were digitally photographed using a JEM-1230 transmission electron microscope (JEOL
USA Inc., Peabody, MA, USA).
Results
Fibroblasts and keratinocytes isolated from RDEB patient skin and were cultured using the
same media formulations and culture conditions optimized in our laboratory for normal
fibroblasts and keratinocytes. The RDEB fibroblasts did not exhibit any overt morphological
abnormalities. However, unlike normal keratinocytes, the RDEB keratinocytes did not form
colonies with tightly associated cells (data not shown)[23].ESS prepared with all RDEB-derived cells (group 1) or combinations of RDEB or normal
fibroblasts and keratinocytes (groups 2 and 3) were morphologically similar to ESS prepared
with all normal cells (group 4). ESS in all groups displayed a fibroblast-populated scaffold
and a stratified epidermal layer with a cornified surface (Fig. 1). Although the epidermis of ESS in group 3
(normal fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes) appeared slightly thinner than ESS in other
groups, differences in thickness were variable and not statistically significant (data not
shown).
Figure 1.
Histological sections of engineered skin substitutes (ESS). Shown are Tango-stained
histological sections of ESS prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes
(group 1; A), RDEB fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes (group 2; B), normal fibroblasts
and RDEB keratinocytes (group 3; C), and normal fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes
(group 4; D). Sections are oriented with the epidermis at the top of each photo. Scale
bar in A (100 µm) is for all panels.
Histological sections of engineered skin substitutes (ESS). Shown are Tango-stained
histological sections of ESS prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes
(group 1; A), RDEB fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes (group 2; B), normal fibroblasts
and RDEB keratinocytes (group 3; C), and normal fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes
(group 4; D). Sections are oriented with the epidermis at the top of each photo. Scale
bar in A (100 µm) is for all panels.COL7 expression was undetectable by immunohistochemistry in sections of ESS prepared with
all RDEB-derived cells (group 1) analyzed at the end of the in vitro culture period (Fig. 2). COL7 was detected at the
dermal–epidermal junction of ESS in vitro in groups 2 and 3, prepared with combinations of
normal or RDEB fibroblasts and keratinocytes, but the highest COL7 levels were observed in
ESS of group 4, prepared with all normal cells (Fig. 2). Basement membrane components collagen IV
(COL4) and laminin (LAM) were detected in vitro in ESS of all four groups, with no
significant difference in protein levels among groups (Fig. 3).
Figure 2.
Localization of collagen VII (COL7) in sections of engineered skin substitutes (ESS) in
vitro. Shown are sections of ESS prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes
(group 1; A-D), RDEB fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes (group 2; E–H), normal
fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes (group 3; I–L), and normal fibroblasts and normal
keratinocytes (group 4; M–P). Note that each row depicts a single section photographed
using different fluorescent illumination. Immunohistochemistry was performed to localize
COL7 using two different antibodies: a monoclonal antibody (B, F, J, N; red), specific
for human COL7, and a polyclonal antibody (C, G, K, O; green) that cross-reacts with
mouse COL7. Nuclei were counterstained using 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI; A, E,
I, M; blue). Arrows in A, E, I, and M indicate location of dermal–epidermal junction.
Scale bar in A (100 µm) is same for all panels.
Figure 3.
Deposition of basement membrane in ESS in vitro. Shown are sections of ESS from week 2
in vitro. ESS were prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and keratinocytes
(group 1; A–D), RDEB fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes (group 2; E–H), normal
fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes (group 3; I–L), and normal fibroblasts and
keratinocytes (group 4; M–P), as indicated. Note that each row depicts a single section
photographed using different fluorescent illumination. Immunohistochemistry was
performed to localize collagen IV (COL4; B, F, J, N; green) and laminin (LAM; C, G, K,
O; red). Nuclei were counterstained using DAPI (A, E, I, M; blue). Arrows in A, E, I,
and M indicate location of dermal–epidermal junction. Scale bar in A (100 µm) is same
for all panels.
Localization of collagen VII (COL7) in sections of engineered skin substitutes (ESS) in
vitro. Shown are sections of ESS prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes
(group 1; A-D), RDEB fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes (group 2; E–H), normal
fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes (group 3; I–L), and normal fibroblasts and normal
keratinocytes (group 4; M–P). Note that each row depicts a single section photographed
using different fluorescent illumination. Immunohistochemistry was performed to localize
COL7 using two different antibodies: a monoclonal antibody (B, F, J, N; red), specific
for humanCOL7, and a polyclonal antibody (C, G, K, O; green) that cross-reacts with
mouseCOL7. Nuclei were counterstained using 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI; A, E,
I, M; blue). Arrows in A, E, I, and M indicate location of dermal–epidermal junction.
Scale bar in A (100 µm) is same for all panels.Deposition of basement membrane in ESS in vitro. Shown are sections of ESS from week 2
in vitro. ESS were prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and keratinocytes
(group 1; A–D), RDEB fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes (group 2; E–H), normal
fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes (group 3; I–L), and normal fibroblasts and
keratinocytes (group 4; M–P), as indicated. Note that each row depicts a single section
photographed using different fluorescent illumination. Immunohistochemistry was
performed to localize collagen IV (COL4; B, F, J, N; green) and laminin (LAM; C, G, K,
O; red). Nuclei were counterstained using DAPI (A, E, I, M; blue). Arrows in A, E, I,
and M indicate location of dermal–epidermal junction. Scale bar in A (100 µm) is same
for all panels.After transplantation to mice, ESS in all four groups displayed evidence of epidermal
stratification and fibroblast proliferation (Fig. 4). After grafting, histological evidence of
epidermal blistering was observed in groups 1–3, in ESS prepared with RDEB fibroblasts
and/or keratinocytes; this was not observed in group 4 ESS prepared with all normal cells
(Figs. 4 and 5). At 3 weeks after grafting, the most severe
epidermal blistering was observed in ESS prepared with RDEB keratinocytes and RDEB
fibroblasts (Figs. 4–5).
Figure 4.
Histological sections of engineered skin substitutes (ESS) in vivo. Shown are
Tango-stained histological sections of ESS from week 1 (left; A, D, G, J), week 2
(center; B, E, H, K), and week 3 (right; C, F, I; L) in vivo. ESS were
prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 1; A–C), RDEB fibroblasts and
normal keratinocytes (group 2; D–F), normal fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes (group 3;
G–I), and normal fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 4; J–L), as indicated. Arrows
indicate examples of epidermal blistering in ESS prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and/or
keratinocytes. Scale bar in A (100 µm) is same for all panels.
Figure 5.
Quantification of blistering in engineered skin substitutes (ESS) in vivo. ESS were
prepared with RDEB fibroblasts (EBF) or normal fibroblasts (NF) and RDEB keratinocytes
(EBK) or normal keratinocytes (NK) and blistering was evaluated at weeks 1, 2, and 3
after grafting to mice. Blistering values are based on the total length of blisters as a
percent of total length of the dermal–epidermal junction in non-overlapping microscopic
fields. Values plotted are means + standard error of the mean (SEM). No blistering was
observed for grafts prepared with all normal cells (NF–NK); thus, these values are zero
for each time point. Group differences at each time point were statistically significant
and P-values are indicated. Significant pairwise differences are
indicated by symbols (*, P < 0.05 vs. NF–NK; #, P
< 0.05 vs. all other groups at the same time point).
Histological sections of engineered skin substitutes (ESS) in vivo. Shown are
Tango-stained histological sections of ESS from week 1 (left; A, D, G, J), week 2
(center; B, E, H, K), and week 3 (right; C, F, I; L) in vivo. ESS were
prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 1; A–C), RDEB fibroblasts and
normal keratinocytes (group 2; D–F), normal fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes (group 3;
G–I), and normal fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 4; J–L), as indicated. Arrows
indicate examples of epidermal blistering in ESS prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and/or
keratinocytes. Scale bar in A (100 µm) is same for all panels.Quantification of blistering in engineered skin substitutes (ESS) in vivo. ESS were
prepared with RDEB fibroblasts (EBF) or normal fibroblasts (NF) and RDEB keratinocytes
(EBK) or normal keratinocytes (NK) and blistering was evaluated at weeks 1, 2, and 3
after grafting to mice. Blistering values are based on the total length of blisters as a
percent of total length of the dermal–epidermal junction in non-overlapping microscopic
fields. Values plotted are means + standard error of the mean (SEM). No blistering was
observed for grafts prepared with all normal cells (NF–NK); thus, these values are zero
for each time point. Group differences at each time point were statistically significant
and P-values are indicated. Significant pairwise differences are
indicated by symbols (*, P < 0.05 vs. NF–NK; #, P
< 0.05 vs. all other groups at the same time point).Expression of COL7 was detected in ESS in vivo in grafts prepared with any normal cells
(groups 2–4); COL7 was undetectable in ESS prepared using both RDEB fibroblasts and
keratinocytes (group 1). Levels of COL7 increased over time, from week 1 through week 3
after grafting, and appeared highest in grafts prepared with normal fibroblasts and
keratinocytes (group 4) at 3 weeks after grafting (Fig. 6). Two antibodies were used for detection of
humanCOL7 protein; a mouse monoclonal antibody, specific for humanCOL7, and a rabbit
polyclonal antibody, which showed slight cross-reactivity with mouseCOL7 (Fig. 6 and Supplemental Fig. S1).
Immunohistochemistry was performed using control sections of human skin from the RDEB
patient, normal human skin, and mouse skin, which demonstrated specificity of the monoclonal
antibody for humanCOL7 (Supplemental Fig. S1).
Figure 6.
Localization of collagen VII (COL7) in engineered skin substitutes (ESS) in vivo.
Immunohistochemistry was performed to localize COL7 using two different antibodies: a
monoclonal antibody (red), specific for human COL7, and a polyclonal antibody (green)
that cross-reacts with mouse COL7. Nuclei were counterstained using DAPI (blue). Merged
fluorescent images are shown. Shown are sections of ESS from week 1 (left; A, D, G, J),
week 2 (center; B, E, H, K), and week 3 (right; C, F, I, L) in vivo.
ESS were prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 1; A–C), RDEB
fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes (group 2; D–F), normal fibroblasts and RDEB
keratinocytes (group 3; G–I), and normal fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 4; J–L),
as indicated. Arrows (A–C) indicate locations of dermal–epidermal junctions, and
asterisks (C) indicate epidermal blistering, in ESS prepared with all RDEB cells. Scale
bar in A (50 µm) is same for all panels.
Localization of collagen VII (COL7) in engineered skin substitutes (ESS) in vivo.
Immunohistochemistry was performed to localize COL7 using two different antibodies: a
monoclonal antibody (red), specific for humanCOL7, and a polyclonal antibody (green)
that cross-reacts with mouseCOL7. Nuclei were counterstained using DAPI (blue). Merged
fluorescent images are shown. Shown are sections of ESS from week 1 (left; A, D, G, J),
week 2 (center; B, E, H, K), and week 3 (right; C, F, I, L) in vivo.
ESS were prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 1; A–C), RDEB
fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes (group 2; D–F), normal fibroblasts and RDEB
keratinocytes (group 3; G–I), and normal fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 4; J–L),
as indicated. Arrows (A–C) indicate locations of dermal–epidermal junctions, and
asterisks (C) indicate epidermal blistering, in ESS prepared with all RDEB cells. Scale
bar in A (50 µm) is same for all panels.Immunohistochemistry with an antibody against HLA was used to examine engraftment by
detecting the presence of human cells in grafted ESS. Positive HLA-ABC immunostaining was
virtually undetectable in normal or RDEB ESS at weeks 1 and 2 after grafting. This is
consistent with previous studies in our laboratory; HLA-ABC levels are typically low or
undetectable at early time points after grafting but increase over time in vivo (data not
shown). At 3 weeks after grafting, HLA-ABC-positive keratinocytes were observed in ESS in
groups 2 and 4, which were prepared using normal keratinocytes (Supplemental Fig. S2).
Positive immunostaining for HLA-ABC was not detected in grafts prepared using RDEB
keratinocytes (groups 1 and 3). As a control for the HLA-ABC immunostaining, expression was
observed in sections of both native RDEB patient skin and normal human skin (Supplemental
Fig. S2). To confirm engraftment of human cells in ESS from all groups, a human-specific
antibody against E-cadherin, a protein expressed on the surface of epithelial cells, was
used. The specificity of this antibody for humanE-cadherin was demonstrated by
immunohistochemistry with control sections of human RDEB and normal skin, and mouse skin
(Supplemental Fig. S3). Localization of humanE-cadherin in ESS in vivo was observed in all
groups and all time points, confirming engraftment of human epidermal cells in ESS (Fig. 7).
Figure 7.
Localization of human E-cadherin and collagen VII (COL7) in engineered skin substitutes
(ESS) in vivo. Immunohistochemistry was performed to localize human E-cadherin (green),
a marker for human epidermal cells, and COL7 (red); nuclei were counterstained using
DAPI (blue). Shown are sections of ESS from week 1 (left; A, D, G, J), week 2 (center;
B, E, H, K), and week 3 (right; C, F, I, L) in vivo. ESS were prepared
with RDEB fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 1; A–C), RDEB fibroblasts and normal
keratinocytes (group 2; D–F), normal fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes (group 3; G–I),
and normal fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 4; J–L), as indicated. Asterisks (C)
indicate epidermal blistering in ESS prepared with all RDEB cells. Scale bar in A (50
µm) is same for all panels.
Localization of humanE-cadherin and collagen VII (COL7) in engineered skin substitutes
(ESS) in vivo. Immunohistochemistry was performed to localize humanE-cadherin (green),
a marker for human epidermal cells, and COL7 (red); nuclei were counterstained using
DAPI (blue). Shown are sections of ESS from week 1 (left; A, D, G, J), week 2 (center;
B, E, H, K), and week 3 (right; C, F, I, L) in vivo. ESS were prepared
with RDEB fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 1; A–C), RDEB fibroblasts and normal
keratinocytes (group 2; D–F), normal fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes (group 3; G–I),
and normal fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 4; J–L), as indicated. Asterisks (C)
indicate epidermal blistering in ESS prepared with all RDEB cells. Scale bar in A (50
µm) is same for all panels.Basement membrane proteins COL4 and LAM were detected in ESS of all four groups at all time
points (Fig. 8). Staining was
evident in the basement membrane of the dermal–epidermal junction and in blood vessels.
There was little noticeable difference in staining intensity among groups 2–4, but ESS in
group 1, prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and keratinocytes, displayed reduced COL4 and LAM
staining at the dermal–epidermal junction at week 3 after grafting (Fig. 8C). This may be due to epidermal blistering,
which disrupted the structure of the dermal–epidermal basement membrane. Vascularization of
ESS was evident in sections of ESS from all groups at weeks 2 and 3 after grafting, but
appeared to be reduced in ESS in group 1, particularly at 3 weeks after grafting.
Figure 8.
Deposition of basement membrane in ESS in vivo. Immunohistochemistry
was performed to localize collagen IV (green) and laminin (red); nuclei were
counterstained using DAPI (blue). Shown are sections of ESS from week 1 (left; A, D, G,
J), week 2 (center; B, E, H, K), and week 3 (right; C, F, I, L) in
vivo. ESS were prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 1;
A–C), RDEB fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes (group 2; D–F), normal fibroblasts and
RDEB keratinocytes (group 3; G–I), and normal fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 4;
J–L), as indicated. Asterisks (C) indicate epidermal blistering in ESS prepared with all
RDEB cells. Scale bar in A (50 µm) is same for all panels.
Deposition of basement membrane in ESS in vivo. Immunohistochemistry
was performed to localize collagen IV (green) and laminin (red); nuclei were
counterstained using DAPI (blue). Shown are sections of ESS from week 1 (left; A, D, G,
J), week 2 (center; B, E, H, K), and week 3 (right; C, F, I, L) in
vivo. ESS were prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 1;
A–C), RDEB fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes (group 2; D–F), normal fibroblasts and
RDEB keratinocytes (group 3; G–I), and normal fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 4;
J–L), as indicated. Asterisks (C) indicate epidermal blistering in ESS prepared with all
RDEB cells. Scale bar in A (50 µm) is same for all panels.TEM was used to visualize the ultrastructural components of the basement membrane zone of
ESS in vitro and in vivo at all time points (Fig. 9). In ESS in vitro, the basement membrane with a
lamina densa and lamina lucida was apparent in all samples. Anchoring fibrils appeared
morphologically normal, with clear striations, in samples of ESScontaining normal
fibroblasts and keratinocytes (group 4) in vitro (Fig. 9J). In ESScontaining combinations of normal and
RDEB fibroblasts and keratinocytes (groups 2 and 3), hints of structures resembling
anchoring fibrils were observed, but these appeared diffuse and without the clear striations
observed in normal anchoring fibrils (Fig.
9D, G). Anchoring fibrils were not observed in vitro in ESScontaining all RDEB
cells (group 1; Fig. 9A). At 1 week
after grafting, no anchoring fibrils were observed in any of the samples examined, including
group 4 ESScontaining normal fibroblasts and keratinocytes (data not shown). By 2 and 3
weeks after grafting, morphologically normal anchoring fibrils were observed in group 4 ESS
(Fig. 9K–L), but similar to what
was observed with ESS in vitro, the structures observed in ESS of groups 2 and 3 appeared
diffuse and without clear striations (Fig.
9E,F, H,I). No anchoring fibrils were observed in group 1 ESS at weeks 2 or 3 in
vivo (Fig. 9B,C).
Figure 9.
Transmission electron microscopy of dermal–epidermal junction in engineered skin
substitutes (ESS). Shown are images of ESS prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and
keratinocytes (group 1; A–C), RDEB fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes (group 2; D–F),
normal fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes (group 3; G–I), and normal fibroblasts and
keratinocytes (group 4; J–L), as indicated, collected at the end of the in vitro
incubation period (left; A, D, G, J), and at 2 weeks (center; B, E, H, K) and 3 weeks
(right; C, F, I, L) after grafting. Anchoring fibrils appeared morphologically normal in
samples of ESS prepared with all normal cells (J, K, L; small white arrows); anchoring
fibrils in other samples, if present, appeared diffuse and without clear striations
(black arrows). Hemidesmosomes were evident in vitro at 2 and 3 weeks in vivo (white
asterisks). Original magnification was 80,000×; scale bar in A (200 nm) is the same for
all sections.
Transmission electron microscopy of dermal–epidermal junction in engineered skin
substitutes (ESS). Shown are images of ESS prepared with RDEB fibroblasts and
keratinocytes (group 1; A–C), RDEB fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes (group 2; D–F),
normal fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes (group 3; G–I), and normal fibroblasts and
keratinocytes (group 4; J–L), as indicated, collected at the end of the in vitro
incubation period (left; A, D, G, J), and at 2 weeks (center; B, E, H, K) and 3 weeks
(right; C, F, I, L) after grafting. Anchoring fibrils appeared morphologically normal in
samples of ESS prepared with all normal cells (J, K, L; small white arrows); anchoring
fibrils in other samples, if present, appeared diffuse and without clear striations
(black arrows). Hemidesmosomes were evident in vitro at 2 and 3 weeks in vivo (white
asterisks). Original magnification was 80,000×; scale bar in A (200 nm) is the same for
all sections.
Discussion
This study was undertaken to determine whether COL7 expression is required in both
fibroblasts and keratinocytes in a bilayer skin substitute, or whether expression in only
dermal fibroblasts or epidermal keratinocytes would suffice to prevent blistering and enable
formation of anchoring fibrils. Previous studies involving this engineered skin model
demonstrated deposition of COL7 at the basement membrane in vitro, prior to grafting[24]. Therefore, we anticipated that anchoring fibrils might form in ESS in vitro. Because
COL7 deposition at the basement membrane was observed in ESS prepared with normal cells in
only one layer, dermis or epidermis, we expected that ESS in these groups would display
anchoring fibril formation in vitro. However, we only observed morphologically normal
anchoring fibrils in ESS prepared with both normal fibroblasts and keratinocytes, suggesting
that COL7 expression is required in both epidermis and dermis for anchoring fibril formation
in vitro. Anchoring fibrils were not observed at week 1 in vivo; this may be due to the
extensive proliferation and remodeling that occurs in ESS in the first week after grafting[17]. Although some fibril-like structures were observed in ESS in groups 2 and 3 after 2
weeks in vivo, these did not resemble normal anchoring fibrils. The current study only
examined grafts up to 3 weeks after transplantation; thus, it is possible that formation of
morphologically normal anchoring fibrils is delayed rather than inhibited in vivo in the
“hybrid” ESScontaining combinations of normal and RDEB fibroblasts and keratinocytes.
Future studies involving later time points will be required to determine if anchoring
fibrils eventually form in vivo in bilayer skin substitutes containing COL7-expressing cells
in only the dermis or epidermis.A recent report cautioned that murineCOL7 was able to form anchoring fibrils in human
reconstructed skin grafted to mice[25]. That report used the same monoclonal antibody against humanCOL7, clone LH7.2, as
used in the current study. We confirmed that this antibody is human specific by
immunohistochemistry with control sections of RDEB patient skin, normal human skin, and
mouse skin. In contrast to the previous report by Bremer et al.[25], murineCOL7 was not detected in our study in grafts of ESScontaining RDEB
fibroblasts and keratinocytes at 1 to 3 weeks after grafting. This may be due to differences
in the models used in the two studies. In the current study, the grafts formed distinct
dermal and epidermal layers prior to grafting, whereas the previous study involved
transplantation of fibroblasts and keratinocytes in a chamber and in vivo reconstitution of
skin layers[25]. In addition, their analysis was performed at 10 weeks after grafting. If our model
were to be examined at 10 weeks or more after transplantation, it is possible that some
deposition of murinecollagen VII may be observed.We were surprised to see that RDEB keratinocytes in ESS were deficient in expression of
HLA-ABC at 3 weeks after grafting, despite clear evidence of persistence of human
keratinocytes in vivo demonstrated by humanE-cadherin localization. Although specific HLA
haplotypes were previously reported to be associated with RDEB[26], the antibody used for the analysis in the current study is reportedly directed at
non-polymorphic epitopes of the HLA-ABC antigens. Positive HLA-ABC immunostaining was
observed in the epidermis of the RDEB patient skin sample used for isolation of primary
cells, at levels similar to normal human skin. Therefore, we expected HLA-ABC to be
expressed similarly in RDEB and normal keratinocytes in ESS in vivo. In numerous previous
studies in our laboratory, we have observed that expression of HLA increases over time after
grafting, with low to undetectable levels at very early time points in vivo (unpublished
data). The absence of detectable HLA staining in ESScontaining RDEB keratinocytes at 3
weeks in vivo may reflect a delay in tissue maturation after grafting. A long-term time
course, which was beyond the scope of the current study, will be required to resolve this
issue.Restoration of COL7 expression is the goal of cutaneous gene therapy for RDEB. For patients
with JEB, in which the mutation affects laminin, a protein expressed only in keratinocytes,
CEA appears to be a very effective means of ex vivo gene therapy[7]. It is less clear whether this approach will be sufficient for stable, long-term
wound closure in patients with RDEB because COL7 is normally expressed by both epidermal
keratinocytes and dermal fibroblasts. Although a previous clinical trial in patients with
RDEB demonstrated wound closure and anchoring fibril formation in grafts containing cultured
keratinocytes genetically modified by retroviral transduction to expressCOL7, the results
were variable and lasting benefits were not seen for all patients[8]. In that study, the authors speculated that the decline in healing over time might
have resulted from a reduced number of stem cells in the patient skin biopsies, or that the
corrected cells in the grafts were out-competed by cells in the wound bed not expressing COL7[8,9]. A limitation of ex vivo gene therapies that utilize CEA is inclusion of only a
single cell type, which may reduce stability of grafted cells. Previous studies from our
group determined that a robust dermal fibroblast layer improved tissue development in ESS[27]. Similar results have been reported by others[28-30], emphasizing the importance of paracrine interactions between fibroblasts and
keratinocytes for optimal skin morphogenesis. The reduced long-term graft stability observed
in RDEB patients treated with COL7A1-expressing CEA[8] may have resulted, in part, from the absence of a dermal layer to support epithelial
cell proliferation, stratification, and establishment of a stem cell niche. CEA is used as
an adjunctive treatment for burn patients, but epidermal blistering and fragility are among
the limitations encountered with this therapy[31]. These limitations are not observed in ESS because it contains both an epidermal and
a dermal layer. Previous clinical studies in pediatric burn patients demonstrated the
potential for long-term, stable wound closure after grafting of autologous ESS[13]. Deposition of basement membrane in vitro, prior to grafting[24], is believed to suppress blister formation after transplantation to full-thickness
wounds. Therefore, we predict that a bilayer skin substitute model, such as ESS, will be
superior to CEA for use in cutaneous gene therapy for RDEB.Blisters were not observed in ESS prepared with normal fibroblasts and keratinocytes at any
time point examined, whereas blistering was observed in ESS prepared using RDEB fibroblasts
and/or keratinocytes. The most severe blistering was observed in ESScontaining all RDEB
cells at 3 weeks after grafting. Blistering was relatively minor and was similar in groups
1–3 at 1 and 2 weeks after grafting. At these time points, the grafts were secured by
sutures and covered with dressing materials until biopsies were collected for analysis,
which likely protected the grafts and inhibited blistering in ESS prepared with RDEB cells.
One week after suture and dressing removal, at 3 weeks after grafting, significantly more
blistering was observed in ESS prepared using RDEB fibroblasts and RDEB keratinocytes
compared with ESScontaining mixtures of RDEB and normal cells, suggesting that these grafts
were more susceptible to blistering in the absence of wound dressings.A bilayer skin substitute model containing gene-edited RDEB fibroblasts and keratinocytes
was recently investigated in preclinical studies using a mouse xenograft model[10]. Izmiryan et al. used CRISPR-based gene editing and homology-directed repair to
restore COL7 expression in skin substitutes in vivo to approximately 20–26% of normal
levels; this was sufficient to enable formation of anchoring fibrils[10]. That study demonstrated the enormous therapeutic potential of the combined
approaches of gene editing and tissue engineering for treatment of RDEB. However, the model
used in that study was limited in its clinical utility compared with ESS. The culture of
primary keratinocytes used in that study was performed using lethally irradiated murine
3T3-J2 feeder cells, which would result in classification of this skin substitute as a
xenograft by the US Food and Drug Administration[32]. In addition, the skin substitutes were transplanted using a skin flap procedure[10], which would be difficult to translate clinically for treatment of RDEB patients. The
model of engineered skin utilized in the current study is prepared using primary
keratinocytes cultured without use of mouse feeder cells. This culture method was previously
optimized for clinical translation, and was tested clinically in over 50 pediatric burn
patients with large (>50% TBSA) full-thickness burns[13,14]. In patients with the largest burns, up to 60% TBSA was healed using autologous ESS[13]. Based on clinical experiences with burn patients, this model appears well suited as
a platform for cutaneous gene therapy for RDEB.
Conclusions
High levels of COL7 were observed at the dermal–epidermal junction of ESS in groups 2–4 by
2 to 3 weeks after grafting. Based on this observation, we expected that ESScontaining
normal, COL7-expressing cells in only one layer would be sufficient to support anchoring
fibril formation, even if the other layer contained native RDEB cells. If this were the
case, it could greatly simplify cutaneous gene therapy efforts, requiring genetic
modification of only fibroblasts or keratinocytes. However, the results of the current study
suggest that the benefits achieved by inclusion of a dermal layer may only be realized if
both keratinocytes and fibroblasts expressCOL7. Further studies examining basement membrane
structure at later time points after transplantation in vivo will be required to determine
whether anchoring fibril formation is inhibited or merely delayed by expression of COL7 in a
single layer of this bilayer skin substitute.Click here for additional data file.Supplementary_Materials for Collagen VII Expression Is Required in Both Keratinocytes and
Fibroblasts for Anchoring Fibril Formation in Bilayer Engineered Skin Substitutes by
Dorothy M. Supp, Jennifer M. Hahn, Kelly A. Combs, Kevin L. McFarland, Ann Schwentker,
Raymond E. Boissy, Steven T. Boyce, Heather M. Powell and Anne W. Lucky in Cell
Transplantation
Authors: Jennifer M Hahn; Kathryn Glaser; Kevin L McFarland; Bruce J Aronow; Steven T Boyce; Dorothy M Supp Journal: Wound Repair Regen Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.617
Authors: Steven T Boyce; Richard J Kagan; Kevin P Yakuboff; Nicholas A Meyer; Mary T Rieman; David G Greenhalgh; Glenn D Warden Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Zurab Siprashvili; Ngon T Nguyen; Emily S Gorell; Kylie Loutit; Phuong Khuu; Louise K Furukawa; H Peter Lorenz; Thomas H Leung; Douglas R Keene; Kerri E Rieger; Paul Khavari; Alfred T Lane; Jean Y Tang; M Peter Marinkovich Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jennifer M Klingenberg; Kevin L McFarland; Aaron J Friedman; Steven T Boyce; Bruce J Aronow; Dorothy M Supp Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Tobias Hirsch; Tobias Rothoeft; Norbert Teig; Johann W Bauer; Graziella Pellegrini; Laura De Rosa; Davide Scaglione; Julia Reichelt; Alfred Klausegger; Daniela Kneisz; Oriana Romano; Alessia Secone Seconetti; Roberta Contin; Elena Enzo; Irena Jurman; Sonia Carulli; Frank Jacobsen; Thomas Luecke; Marcus Lehnhardt; Meike Fischer; Maximilian Kueckelhaus; Daniela Quaglino; Michele Morgante; Silvio Bicciato; Sergio Bondanza; Michele De Luca Journal: Nature Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Irina Gurevich; Pooja Agarwal; PeiPei Zhang; John A Dolorito; Stacie Oliver; Henry Liu; Nicholas Reitze; Nikhil Sarma; Isin Sinem Bagci; Kunju Sridhar; Visesha Kakarla; Vamsi K Yenamandra; Mark O'Malley; Marco Prisco; Sara F Tufa; Douglas R Keene; Andrew P South; Suma M Krishnan; M Peter Marinkovich Journal: Nat Med Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 87.241
Authors: Carolyn S Lee; Zurab Siprashvili; Angela Mah; Tomas Bencomo; Lara E Elcavage; Yonglu Che; Rajani M Shenoy; Sumaira Z Aasi; Paul A Khavari Journal: Oncogene Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 9.867