Keloids constitute an abnormal fibroproliferative wound healing response in which raised scar tissue grows excessively and invasively beyond the original wound borders. This review provides a comprehensive overview of several important themes in keloid research: namely keloid histopathology, heterogeneity, pathogenesis, and model systems. Although keloidal collagen versus nodules and α-SMA-immunoreactivity have been considered pathognomonic for keloids versus hypertrophic scars, conflicting results have been reported which will be discussed together with other histopathological keloid characteristics. Importantly, histopathological keloid abnormalities are also present in the keloid epidermis. Heterogeneity between and within keloids exists which is often not considered when interpreting results and may explain discrepancies between studies. At least two distinct keloid phenotypes exist, the superficial-spreading/flat keloids and the bulging/raised keloids. Within keloids, the periphery is often seen as the actively growing margin compared to the more quiescent center, although the opposite has also been reported. Interestingly, the normal skin directly surrounding keloids also shows partial keloid characteristics. Keloids are most likely to occur after an inciting stimulus such as (minor and disproportionate) dermal injury or an inflammatory process (environmental factors) at a keloid-prone anatomical site (topological factors) in a genetically predisposed individual (patient-related factors). The specific cellular abnormalities these various patient, topological and environmental factors generate to ultimately result in keloid scar formation are discussed. Existing keloid models can largely be divided into in vivo and in vitro systems including a number of subdivisions: human/animal, explant/culture, homotypic/heterotypic culture, direct/indirect co-culture, and 3D/monolayer culture. As skin physiology, immunology and wound healing is markedly different in animals and since keloids are exclusive to humans, there is a need for relevant human in vitro models. Of these, the direct co-culture systems that generate full thickness keloid equivalents appear the most promising and will be key to further advance keloid research on its pathogenesis and thereby ultimately advance keloid treatment. Finally, the recent change in keloid nomenclature will be discussed, which has moved away from identifying keloids solely as abnormal scars with a purely cosmetic association toward understanding keloids for the fibroproliferative disorder that they are.

Although hypertrophic scars and keloids both generate excessive scar tissue, keloids are characterized by their extensive growth beyond the borders of the original wound, which is not observed in hypertrophic scars. Whether or not hypertrophic scars and keloids are two sides of the same coin or in fact distinct entities remains a topic of much debate. However, proper comparison between the two ideally occurs within the same study, but this is the exception rather than the rule. For this reason, the goal of this review was to summarize and evaluate all publications in which both hypertrophic scars and keloids were studied and compared to one another within the same study. The presence of horizontal growth is the mainstay of the keloid diagnosis and remains the strongest argument in support of keloids and hypertrophic scars being distinct entities, and the histopathological distinction is less straightforward. Keloidal collagen remains the strongest keloid parameter, but dermal nodules and α‐SMA immunoreactivity are not limited to hypertrophic scars alone. Ultimately, the current hypertrophic scars‐keloid differences are mostly quantitative in nature rather than qualitative, and many similar abnormalities exist in both lesions. Nonetheless, the presence of similarities does not equate the absence of fundamental differences, some of which may not yet have been uncovered given how much we still have to learn about the processes involved in normal wound healing. It therefore seems pertinent to continue treating hypertrophic scars and keloids as separate entities, until such a time as new findings more decisively convinces us otherwise.

Wound healing is an essential process to restore tissue integrity after trauma. Large skin wounds such as burns often heal with hypertrophic scarring and contractures, resulting in disfigurements and reduced joint mobility. Such adverse healing outcomes are less common in the oral mucosa, which generally heals faster compared to skin. Several studies have identified differences between oral and skin wound healing. Most of these studies however focus only on a single stage of wound healing or a single cell type. The aim of this review is to provide an extensive overview of wound healing in skin versus oral mucosa during all stages of wound healing and including all cell types and molecules involved in the process and also taking into account environmental specific factors such as exposure to saliva and the microbiome. Next to intrinsic properties of resident cells and differential expression of cytokines and growth factors, multiple external factors have been identified that contribute to oral wound healing. It can be concluded that faster wound closure, the presence of saliva, a more rapid immune response, and increased extracellular matrix remodeling all contribute to the superior wound healing and reduced scar formation in oral mucosa, compared to skin.

Currently, human skin equivalents (HSEs) used for in vitro assays (e.g., for wound healing) make use of primary human skin cells. Limitations of primary keratinocytes and fibroblasts include availability of donor skin and donor variation. The use of physiologically relevant cell lines could solve these limitations. The aim was to develop a fully differentiated HSE constructed entirely from human skin cell lines, which could be applied for in vitro wound-healing assays. Skin equivalents were constructed from human TERT-immortalized keratinocytes and fibroblasts (TERT-HSE) and compared with native skin and primary HSEs. HSEs were characterized by hematoxylin–eosin and immunohistochemical stainings with markers for epidermal proliferation and differentiation, basement membrane (BM), fibroblasts, and the extracellular matrix (ECM). Ultrastructure was determined with electron microscopy. To test the functionality of the TERT-HSE, burn and cold injuries were applied, followed by immunohistochemical stainings, measurement of reepithelialization, and determination of secreted wound-healing mediators. The TERT-HSE was composed of a fully differentiated epidermis and a fibroblast-populated dermis comparable to native skin and primary HSE. The epidermis consisted of proliferating keratinocytes within the basal layer, followed by multiple spinous layers, a granular layer, and cornified layers. Within the TERT-HSE, the membrane junctions such as corneosomes, desmosomes, and hemidesmosomes were well developed as shown by ultrastructure pictures. Furthermore, the BM consisted of a lamina lucida and lamina densa comparable to native skin. The dermal matrix of the TERT-HSE was more similar to native skin than the primary construct, since collagen III, an ECM marker, was present in TERT-HSEs and absent in primary HSEs. After wounding, the TERT-HSE was able to reepithelialize and secrete inflammatory wound-healing mediators. In conclusion, the novel TERT-HSE, constructed entirely from human cell lines, provides an excellent opportunity to study in vitro skin biology and can also be used for drug targeting and testing new therapeutics, and ultimately, for incorporating into skin-on-a chip in the future.

The initial step in Langerhans cell (LC) migration from the epidermis to the lymph node involves migration of maturing LC into the dermis. Here, we investigated the migration of LC out of the epidermis after exposure of the skin to contact allergens. Ex vivo intact human skin, epidermal sheets, and LC derived from the MUTZ‐3 cell line (MUTZ‐LC) were used to determine whether dermal fibroblasts play a role in mediating LC migration towards the dermis. Exposure of epidermal sheets or MUTZ‐LC to allergens (nickel sulphate, 2,4‐dinitrochlorobenzene, and cinnamaldehyde) or a cytokine maturation cocktail resulted in LC migration towards dermal fibroblasts. This was due to upregulation of CXCR4 on maturing LC and secretion of CXCL12/stromal derived factor‐1 chemokine by fibroblasts. Neutralizing antibodies to either CXCL12 or CXCR4 completely blocked migration. Injection of CXCL12 neutralizing antibodies into intact human skin totally inhibited LC migration into the dermis. In contrast, neutralizing antibodies to CCL19/CCL21 did not inhibit migration into the dermis. We describe a novel and essential role of dermis‐derived CXCL12 in initiating migration of maturing human LC to the dermis thus permitting their further journey to the draining lymph nodes.