Molecular characterization of xerosis cutis: A systematic review.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
14
06
2021
accepted:
26
11
2021
entrez:
16
12
2021
pubmed:
17
12
2021
medline:
27
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Xerosis cutis or dry skin is a highly prevalent dermatological disorder especially in the elderly and in patients with underlying health conditions. In the past decades, numerous molecular markers have been investigated for their association with the occurrence or severity of skin dryness. The aim of this review was to summarize the molecular markers used in xerosis cutis research and to describe possible associations with different dry skin etiologies. We conducted a systematic review of molecular markers of xerosis cutis caused by internal or systemic changes. References published between 1990 and September 2020 were searched using 'MEDLINE', 'EMBASE' and 'Biological abstracts' databases. Study results were summarized and analyzed descriptively. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42020214173). A total of 21 study reports describing 72 molecules were identified including lipids, natural moisturizing factors (NMFs), proteins including cytokines and metabolites or metabolic products. Most frequently reported markers were ceramides, total free fatty acids, triglycerides and selected components of NMFs. Thirty-one markers were reported only once. Although, associations of these molecular markers with skin dryness were described, reports of unclear and/or no association were also frequent for nearly every marker. An unexpectedly high number of various molecules to quantify xerosis cutis was found. There is substantial heterogeneity regarding molecular marker selection, tissue sampling and laboratory analyses. Empirical evidence is also heterogeneous regarding possible associations with dry skin. Total free fatty acids, total ceramide, ceramide (NP), ceramide (NS), triglyceride, total free amino acids and serine seem to be relevant, but the association with dry skin is inconsistent. Although the quantification of molecular markers plays an important role in characterizing biological processes, pathogenic processes or pharmacologic responses, it is currently unclear which molecules work best in xerosis cutis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Xerosis cutis or dry skin is a highly prevalent dermatological disorder especially in the elderly and in patients with underlying health conditions. In the past decades, numerous molecular markers have been investigated for their association with the occurrence or severity of skin dryness. The aim of this review was to summarize the molecular markers used in xerosis cutis research and to describe possible associations with different dry skin etiologies.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of molecular markers of xerosis cutis caused by internal or systemic changes. References published between 1990 and September 2020 were searched using 'MEDLINE', 'EMBASE' and 'Biological abstracts' databases. Study results were summarized and analyzed descriptively. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42020214173).
RESULTS
A total of 21 study reports describing 72 molecules were identified including lipids, natural moisturizing factors (NMFs), proteins including cytokines and metabolites or metabolic products. Most frequently reported markers were ceramides, total free fatty acids, triglycerides and selected components of NMFs. Thirty-one markers were reported only once. Although, associations of these molecular markers with skin dryness were described, reports of unclear and/or no association were also frequent for nearly every marker.
CONCLUSION
An unexpectedly high number of various molecules to quantify xerosis cutis was found. There is substantial heterogeneity regarding molecular marker selection, tissue sampling and laboratory analyses. Empirical evidence is also heterogeneous regarding possible associations with dry skin. Total free fatty acids, total ceramide, ceramide (NP), ceramide (NS), triglyceride, total free amino acids and serine seem to be relevant, but the association with dry skin is inconsistent. Although the quantification of molecular markers plays an important role in characterizing biological processes, pathogenic processes or pharmacologic responses, it is currently unclear which molecules work best in xerosis cutis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34914754
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261253
pii: PONE-D-21-19523
pmc: PMC8675746
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Ceramides
0
Fatty Acids, Nonesterified
0
Lipids
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0261253Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1995 Dec;10(12):2269-73
pubmed: 8808224
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 Oct;53(4):555-68; quiz 569-72
pubmed: 16198774
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2019 Nov;17 Suppl 7:3-33
pubmed: 31738016
Clin Exp Dermatol. 2015 Apr;40(3):247-53
pubmed: 25495994
Dermatologica. 1988;177(3):159-64
pubmed: 3169341
Int J Cosmet Sci. 2018 Dec;40(6):549-554
pubmed: 30286269
Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2016;29(3):135-47
pubmed: 27251427
Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Mar;103:103509
pubmed: 31945604
Dermatol Ther. 2004;17 Suppl 1:6-15
pubmed: 14728694
Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2009;22(1):8-14
pubmed: 18832867
Semin Oncol. 2002 Jun;29(3):213-21
pubmed: 12063674
Dermatol Ther. 2004;17 Suppl 1:43-8
pubmed: 14728698
Exp Dermatol. 2012 Mar;21(3):205-10
pubmed: 22379966
Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2013;26(2):108-18
pubmed: 23549137
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2020 Aug;86(2):233-243
pubmed: 32666159
Mol Pharmacol. 2011 Sep;80(3):466-75
pubmed: 21606217
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014 Mar;1841(3):280-94
pubmed: 24262790
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014 Jan;1841(1):70-9
pubmed: 24120918
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001 Mar;69(3):89-95
pubmed: 11240971
Arch Dermatol Res. 1996 Jun;288(7):383-90
pubmed: 8818186
J Invest Dermatol. 1990 Sep;95(3):296-300
pubmed: 2384688
Br J Dermatol. 1989 Nov;121(5):587-92
pubmed: 2597631
Skin Res Technol. 1995 Aug;1(3):109-14
pubmed: 27328437
J Dermatol. 1993 Jan;20(1):1-6
pubmed: 8482746
Int J Nurs Stud. 2017 Aug;73:63-69
pubmed: 28535399
Arch Dermatol Res. 2004 Mar;295(10):448-52
pubmed: 14762669
J Tissue Viability. 2017 Feb;26(1):20-28
pubmed: 27161662
J Tissue Viability. 2019 Nov;28(4):200-209
pubmed: 31575473
Br J Dermatol. 2018 Nov;179(5):1049-1055
pubmed: 30022486
Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2016 Aug 30;8(1):63
pubmed: 27583022
J Cosmet Dermatol. 2013 Mar;12(1):3-11
pubmed: 23438136
Am J Clin Dermatol. 2003;4(2):107-29
pubmed: 12553851
Dermatologica. 1989;178(3):151-5
pubmed: 2721806
Int J Cosmet Sci. 2016 Dec;38(6):615-621
pubmed: 27090066
Clin Dermatol. 2011 Jan-Feb;29(1):37-42
pubmed: 21146730
Arch Dermatol Res. 1996 Nov;288(12):765-70
pubmed: 8950457
J Invest Dermatol. 2000 Apr;114(4):654-60
pubmed: 10733669
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2020 Aug 26;2020:7253560
pubmed: 32908567
J Tissue Viability. 2018 Nov;27(4):226-231
pubmed: 30487067
J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 May;19(5):1121-1128
pubmed: 32141711
J Invest Dermatol. 2001 Jan;116(1):23-30
pubmed: 11168794
Contact Dermatitis. 2017 May;76(5):287-295
pubmed: 28295421