Use of 3D Technology to Support Dermatologists Returning to Practice Amid COVID-19

Ishack, Stephanie; Lipner, Shari R.

doi:10.12788/cutis.0069

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this context, 3D bioprinting using specific bioink offers the possibility to generate biomimetic skin constructs in a fast and reproducible way because the automated process facilitates the deposition of specific cell types at desired positions. [ 56‐58 ] It is intriguing to speculate that the combination of 3D bioprinting with patient‐based bioink (including individual microbiota compositions) will allow for the construction of an in vitro copy of an individual diseased skin state. In the light of these recent developments, it will be exciting to see how future research will unravel personalized models to study individual pathophysiological factors contributing to different skin diseases.…”

Section: D Skin Models As Helpful Tools In Personalized Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%

“…[ 49 ] Full‐thickness complex human skin models generated by a 3D cell‐printing process may offer another feasible strategy to reflect the complexity of native human skin. [ 56,57 ] This complexity is simulated in the skin model by incorporation of an epidermis and vascularized dermal and hypodermal compartments. [ 58 ] Of note, such vascularized skin models represent a further step forward to simulate the in vivo situation.…”

Section: D Skin Models As Helpful Tools In Personalized Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Skin microbiota analysis in human 3D skin models—“Free your mice”

Emmert

Rademacher

Gläser

et al. 2020

Experimental Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is rapid development in the generation of various human skin models. These encompass simple 2D models and more sophisticated 3D models [1,2] including immunocompetent skin models. [3] Human skin models offer one major advantage that should favour their future use: They are human! This simple statement may have important implications when investigating human skin-microbiota interactions. Many mouse models are in use to analyse skin physiology and biology, and it is beyond question that such mouse models help to address specific in vivo issues. However, mouse skin differs from human skin in many ways. In addition to differences in the anatomical structure (mouse skin is thinner due to fewer keratinocytes layers and contains more hair follicles), there are marked differences in gene expression. Gerber et al discovered that there is only 30% identity between the top human-and mouse skin-associated genes. The authors conclude that this huge diversity may explain why data generated in mouse models often fail to translate into humans. [4] There are also important differences in the composition of barrier-related structure proteins building the epidermal differentiation complex. [5] Moreover, human skin harbours different subsets of immune cells and produces different cytokines as compared to mouse skin. [6] Similarly, there are also distinct differences between skin-derived mouse and human antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), for example RNase 7 or SKALP (skin-derived antileukoprotease). This may have crucial consequences because AMPs are an important component of innate cutaneous defense, and there is increasing evidence that AMPs shape the microbiota and the microbiota in turn modulate AMP expression. [7,8] For example, RNase 7 is a major human skin-derived AMP playing an important role in human cutaneous innate defense by controlling the growth of various microbes.

show abstract

Section: D Skin Models As Helpful Tools In Personalized Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%