Is epidermal homeostasis a necessity?—comments on epidermal growth control

R. Marks

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.1980.tb01696.x

IF: 11.113

1980-12-01

British Journal of Dermatology

Abstract:This review was stimulated by the author's dissatisfaction with current views on mammalian epidermal homeostasis. A comprehensive review of the topic will not be attempted; instead, it is intended to survey the possibilities and submit some ideas for examination. 'Epidermal homeostasis' has come to mean maintenance of epidermal population size, though it would seem more reasonable for the organism to be concerned with maintenance of function than constancy of structure. Nonetheless, let us consider the problem from the structural standpoint. Most discussion on this topic starts from the premise that there is one (or several) mechanism(s) responsible for epidermal homeostasis. It is often suggested that it is self evident that the constancy of epidermal structure and its rapid restitution after injury are evidence enough of a strong system of epidermal control. This premise should be critically re-examined before yet more detailed studies are mounted to attempt the isolation of 'growth control substances' from biological sources. Dissociated human epidermal cells form stratified squamous epithelial tissue after some 2 weeks in culture (Rheinwald & Green, 1975; Green, 1977). This 'epidermis' maintains an essentially normal pattern of differentiation with mature 'corneocytes' sloughing off at the surface. Although the presence of fibroblasts is required in the culture fiask it is not clear whether this is because they provide a suitable physical substratum or secrete some essential growth promoting substance. The lack of systemic influences and absence of blood vessels, neural elements, epidermal dendritic cells and surrounding epidermis imply that the epidermal cell itself is able to develop and retain an orderly adult type of epidermal structure. The fact that the 'orderly structure' of the epidermis is so easily abrogated by a variety of comparatively minor insults might also indicate that the control mechanism (if it exists) can be easily 'overruled' (at least temporarily). For example, the concerted and purposive series of alterations to epidermal structure found in transepidermal elimination (Mehregan, 1970), induced by a relatively minor stimulus, (Kirsch & Hukill, 1977; Bayoumi, Gaskell & Marks, 1978) suggests that at the best the control exerted is weak. If epidermal cells were genetically programmed to divide at a constant rate, and had the capacity to respond to stimuli with a burst of mitotic activity, rapidly reverting to their inherent generative capacity, would this not meet most of the mitotic requirements of the epidermis, and indeed fit most of the observations ?