In order to simulate the formation and the subsequent regression of hypertrophic scar tissue, we incorporate into the model some of the processes that take place during the proliferative and the remodeling phase of the wound healing cascade. Solely the dermal layer of the skin is modeled explicitly, and this layer is modeled as a continuum. The adjacent subcutaneous layer is incorporated implicitly into the model through a mechanical interaction between this layer and the dermal layer at their interface.
Due to the fact that biological materials, such as skin tissue, are generally nonlinear, anisotropic, viscoelastic and inhomogeneous materials, these tissues exhibit very complex constitutive behaviors (Fung 1993). Hence, the constitutive stress–strain relations for tissues such as granulation tissue, dermal tissue and scar tissue, if these were available, would be very complicated (Bischoff et al. 2004). In order to keep the model as simple as possible while allowing for finite strains, we decided to model the dermal layer as a heterogeneous, isotropic and compressible neo-Hookean solid (Treloar 1948). The displacement of the dermal layer (\(\mathbf {u}\)) is selected as the primary model variable.
Additionally, we select the following four components of the (healing) dermal layer as primary model components: a generic fibroblast population (N), a generic myofibroblast population (M), a generic signaling molecule (c) and the collagen molecules (\(\rho \)).
Mathematical modeling of the processes involved in the wound healing cascade has been an active area of research for approximately the last 25 years. During this period of time, the number of mathematical models has increased dramatically along with the general level of complexity. Over the years, several surveys of models have appeared, such as those compiled in Sherratt and Dallon (2002), Geris et al. (2010), Buganza Tepole and Kuhl (2013) and Valero et al. (2015). These surveys indicate that the majority of the models can be placed into one of the three categories: continuum hypothesis-based models, discrete cell-based models and hybrid models. We use the general continuum hypothesis-based modeling framework of Tranquillo and Murray (1992) as the mathematical basis for the model of this study. This framework consists of the following general set of conservation equations:
$$\begin{aligned}&\frac{\partial z_{i}}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot (z_{i}\mathbf {v}) = -\nabla \cdot \mathbf {J}_{i} + R_{i}, \end{aligned}$$
(1a)
$$\begin{aligned}&-\nabla \cdot \mathbf {\sigma } = \mathbf {f}. \end{aligned}$$
(1b)
Equation (1a) is the conservation equation for the cell density/concentration of constituent i of the dermal layer, and Eq. (1b) is the reduced conservation equation for the linear momentum of the dermal layer. Like others, we assume that the inertial forces that work on the dermal layer are negligible (Murphy et al. 2012; Olsen et al. 1995a; Tranquillo and Murray 1992; Vermolen and Javierre 2012). As a consequence, the conservation equation for the linear momentum of the dermal layer reduces to the above force balance equation. Within the above equations, \(z_{i}\) represents the cell density/concentration of constituent i, \(\mathbf {v}\) represents the displacement velocity of the dermal layer, \(\mathbf {J}_{i}\) represents the flux associated with constituent i per unit area due to random dispersal, chemotaxis and other possible fluxes, \(R_{i}\) represents the chemical kinetics associated with constituent i, \(\mathbf {\sigma }\) represents the Cauchy stress tensor associated with the dermal layer, and \(\mathbf {f}\) represents the total body force working on the dermal layer. Given the chosen primary model variables, we have \(i \in \{N,M,c,\rho \}\). In order to simplify notation, we replace \(z_{i}\) by i in the remainder of this study. Hence, \(z_{N}\) becomes N, \(z_{M}\) becomes M and so on.
The force balance
Given that we model the dermal layer as a heterogeneous, isotropic and compressible neo-Hookean solid, we take the following constitutive stress–strain relation:
$$\begin{aligned} J\mathbf {\sigma }&= \left( 2D_{1}J(J - 1)\right) \mathbf {I} + 2C_{1}J^{-\frac{2}{3}}\left( \mathbf {B} - \frac{1}{3}\text {tr}\left( \mathbf {B}\right) \mathbf {I}\right) , \end{aligned}$$
(2)
$$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {B}&= \left( -2\mathbf {e} + \mathbf {I}\right) ^{-1}, \end{aligned}$$
(3)
$$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {e}&= \frac{1}{2}\left( \nabla \mathbf {u} + \left( \nabla \mathbf {u}\right) ^{\text {T}} - \left( \nabla \mathbf {u}\right) ^{\text {T}}\nabla \mathbf {u}\right) , \end{aligned}$$
(4)
$$\begin{aligned} 2C_{1}&= \frac{E(\rho )}{2(1 + \nu )}, \end{aligned}$$
(5)
$$\begin{aligned} 2D_{1}&= \frac{E(\rho )}{3(1 - 2\nu )}, \end{aligned}$$
(6)
$$\begin{aligned} E(\rho )&= E^{I}\sqrt{\rho }, \end{aligned}$$
(7)
where \(J = \sqrt{\text {det}(\mathbf {B})}\), \(\mathbf {B}\) is the left Cauchy–Green deformation tensor, \(\mathbf {e}\) is the Eulerian finite strain tensor, \(E(\rho )\) is the collagen molecule concentration-dependent Young’s modulus (Ramtani 2004; Ramtani et al. 2002), \(\nu \) is Poisson’s ratio, and \(\mathbf {I}\) is the second-order identity tensor.
Furthermore, we incorporate into the model that the cells from the heterogeneous myofibroblast population are pulling uniformly on their surroundings, both when they are immobile and when they are moving around through the dermal layer. In order to keep the model as simple as possible, we model the pulling force as an isotropic stress that is proportional to the product of the cell density of the myofibroblast population and a simple function of the concentration of the collagen molecules (Olsen et al. 1995b). No other forces are incorporated into the model. Taken together, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}&\mathbf {f} = \nabla \cdot \mathbf {\psi }, \end{aligned}$$
(8)
$$\begin{aligned}&\mathbf {\psi } = \xi M\left( \frac{\rho }{R^2 + \rho ^{2}}\right) \mathbf {I}, \end{aligned}$$
(9)
where \(\mathbf {\psi }\) is the total generated stress by the myofibroblast population, \(\xi \) is the generated stress per unit cell density and unit collagen molecule concentration, and R is a constant.
The fibroblast population
We incorporate into the model the random movement of fibroblasts through the dermal layer and the directed movement of fibroblasts up the gradient of signaling molecule c, if present. The former process is modeled by cell density-dependent Fickian diffusion, and the latter process is modeled by using a very simple model for chemotaxis (Hillen and Painter 2009). Taken together, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {J}_{N} = -D_{F}F\nabla N + \chi _{F}N\nabla c, \end{aligned}$$
(10)
with
$$\begin{aligned} F = N + M. \end{aligned}$$
(11)
\(D_{F}\) is the cell density-dependent (myo-) fibroblast random motility coefficient, and \(\chi _{F}\) is a chemotactic parameter that depends on both the binding rate and the unbinding rate of the signaling molecule c with its receptors and the concentration of these receptors on the cell surface of the (myo-) fibroblasts. A good example of a family of molecules that acts as a strong attracting stimulus for fibroblasts during dermal wound healing is the family of platelet-derived growth factors (PDGF) (Barrientos et al. 2008).
Furthermore, we incorporate into the model the cell division of fibroblasts by using an adjusted logistic growth model and the cell differentiation of fibroblasts into myofibroblasts under the influence of the signaling molecule c. The rate of cell division is enhanced in the presence of the signaling molecule. Examples of signaling molecules that can stimulate both the up-regulation of the cell division rate of fibroblasts and the cell differentiation rate of fibroblasts into myofibroblasts are certain members of the family of transforming growth factors \(\beta \) (TGF-\(\beta \)) (Werner and Grose 2003). Finally, we incorporate into the model the removal of fibroblasts from the dermal layer by means of apoptosis. Taken together, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} R_{N} = r_{F}\left( 1 + \frac{r_{F}^{\max }c}{a_{c}^{I} + c}\right) (1 - \kappa _{F}F)N^{1 + p} - k_{F}cN - \delta _{N}N, \end{aligned}$$
(12)
where \(r_{F}\) is the cell division rate, \(r_{F}^{\max }\) is the maximum factor with which the cell division rate can be enhanced due to the presence of the signaling molecule, \(a_{c}^{I}\) is the concentration of the signaling molecule that causes the half-maximum enhancement of the cell division rate, \(\kappa _{F}F\) represents the reduction in the cell division rate due to crowding, p is a constant whose value follows from the equilibrium cell density of the fibroblasts in the unwounded dermis (See Appendix 1), \(k_{F}\) is the signaling molecule-dependent cell differentiation rate of fibroblasts into myofibroblasts, and \(\delta _{N}\) is the apoptosis rate of fibroblasts.
The myofibroblast population
We incorporate into the model the random movement of myofibroblasts through the dermal layer and the directed movement of myofibroblasts up the gradient of signaling molecule c, if present. We model these processes in the same way as we model these processes for fibroblasts. Hence we get
$$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {J}_{M} = -D_{F}F\nabla M + \chi _{F}M\nabla c. \end{aligned}$$
(13)
Furthermore, we incorporate into the model the cell division of myofibroblasts by using nearly the same adjusted logistic growth model as used for the fibroblast population. The only difference is that we assume that myofibroblasts solely divide when the generic signaling molecule is present. Finally, we incorporate into the model the removal of myofibroblasts from the dermal layer by means of apoptosis. Taken together, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} R_{M}= & {} r_{F}\left( \frac{\left( 1 + r_{F}^{\max }\right) c}{a_{c}^{I} + c}\right) (1 - \kappa _{F}F)M^{1 + p} \nonumber \\&+\, k_{F}cN - \delta _{M}M, \end{aligned}$$
(14)
where \(\delta _{M}\) is the apoptosis rate of myofibroblasts.
The generic signaling molecule
We assume that both fibroblasts and myofibroblasts release and consume the signaling molecules. The functional forms for these processes are based on the interactions between cell surface receptor molecules and the signaling molecules. The derivation of these functional forms can be found in the article by Olsen and colleagues (1995b). Additionally, we incorporate into the model that the signaling molecules are removed from the dermal layer through proteolytic breakdown. Finally, we assume that the signaling molecules diffuse through the dermal layer according to linear Fickian diffusion. Taken together, this results in
$$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {J}_{c}&= -D_{c}\nabla c, \end{aligned}$$
(15)
$$\begin{aligned} R_{c}&= \frac{k_{c}\left( N + \eta M\right) c}{a_{c}^{II} + c} - \delta _{c}g(F,c,\rho )c, \end{aligned}$$
(16)
where \(D_{c}\) is the Fickian diffusion coefficient of the generic signaling molecule, \(k_{c}\) is the maximum net secretion rate of the signaling molecule, \(\eta \) is the ratio of myofibroblasts to fibroblasts in the maximum net secretion rate of the signaling molecule and the collagen molecules (See the next subsection), \(a_{c}^{II}\) is the concentration of the signaling molecule that causes the half-maximum net secretion rate of the signaling molecule, and \(\delta _{c}\) is the breakdown rate of the signaling molecules.
The last term of \(R_{c}\) requires some more explanation. We incorporate into the model the proteolytic cleavage of the signaling molecule by a generic MMP (Mast and Schultz 1996; Van Lint and Libert 2007). It is known that MMPs are involved in the breakdown of collagen-rich fibrils during the remodeling of the ECM and the maintenance of the ECM (Chakraborti et al. 2003; Lindner et al. 2012; Nagase et al. 2006). Furthermore, it is known that (myo-) fibroblasts are important producers of MMPs (Lindner et al. 2012) and that the production of MMPs is reduced in the presence of signaling molecules like TGF-\(\beta \) (Overall et al. 1991). Therefore, we assume that the concentration of the generic MMP that is responsible for the proteolytic cleavage of the signaling molecule, is a function of the concentration of the collagen molecules, the concentration of the signaling molecule and the cell density of the (myo-) fibroblast population. In this study, we take the following relationship:
$$\begin{aligned} g(F,c,\rho ) = \frac{F\rho }{1 + a_{c}^{III}c}, \end{aligned}$$
(17)
where \(1/(1 + a_{c}^{III}c)\) is the inhibition of the synthesis of the generic MMP due to the presence of the signaling molecule.
The collagen molecules
We assume that secreted collagen molecules are attached to the ECM instantly, so no active transportation of the collagen molecules takes place in the model. Furthermore, we incorporate into the model that the collagen molecules are produced by both fibroblasts and myofibroblasts. In addition, we include that the secretion rate is enhanced in the presence of the signaling molecule. A good example of a signaling molecule that can bring about this behavior in both fibroblasts and myofibroblasts is TGF-\(\beta \) (Werner and Grose 2003). Finally, we incorporate into the model the proteolytic breakdown of the collagen molecules analogously to the removal of the signaling molecules. Taken together, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {J}_{\rho }= & {} \mathbf {0}, \end{aligned}$$
(18)
$$\begin{aligned} R_{\rho }= & {} k_{\rho }\left( 1 + \left( \frac{k_{\rho }^{\max }c}{a_{c}^{IV} + c}\right) \right) \left( N + \eta M\right) \nonumber \\&\quad -\,\delta _{\rho }g(F,c,\rho )\rho , \end{aligned}$$
(19)
where \(k_{\rho }\) is the collagen molecule secretion rate, \(k_{\rho }^{\max }\) is the maximum factor with which the secretion rate can be enhanced due to the presence of the signaling molecule, \(a_{c_{N}}^{IV}\) is the concentration of the signaling molecule that causes the half-maximum enhancement of the secretion rate, and \(\delta _{\rho }\) is the degradation rate of the collagen molecules.
The domain of computation
For the generation of simulation results, the computational domain depicted in Fig. 1 has been used. Note that we assume that the exposed surface area of the wound is a perfect rectangle and that the wound extends uniformly to the boundary between the subcutaneous layer and the dermal layer of the skin. The blue box depicted in Fig. 1b coincides with one of the planes of symmetry of the wound. The actual analyses are performed on the slice depicted in Fig. 1c.
The thickness of unwounded dermis is \(0.15\ \text {cm}\) in the model. This is in close agreement with the measurements of the thickness of normal skin obtained by Nedelec and colleagues (2014) (Skin tissue actually consists of two layers: an epidermal layer and a dermal layer. Oliveira and colleagues (2005) measured the thickness of the epidermis of normal skin tissue, and their measurements showed that the epidermis of this tissue has an average thickness of less than \(95\ \mu \text {m}\). Hence, the thickness of the dermis is more or less equal to the thickness of the epidermis and the dermis combined.).
Using Lagrangian coordinates (\(\mathbf {X} = (X,Y,Z)^{\text {T}}\)), the domain of computation (\({\varOmega }_{X}\)) is described mathematically by
$$\begin{aligned} {\varOmega }_{X} \in \{X = 0,\ -15.96 \le Y \le 15.96,\ -0.15 \le Z \le 0\}. \end{aligned}$$
(20)
Note that \(u = 0\), \(\partial v /\partial x = 0 \) and \(\partial w /\partial x = 0\) hold within the domain of computation as a consequence of the present symmetry (with \(\mathbf {u} = (u,v,w)^{\text {T}}\)). Effectively, this implies that the plane strain assumption holds within the slice of dermal layer (Lai et al. 1999). In addition, the derivatives of the concentrations and the cell densities of the individual constituents, in the x-direction, are also zero due to the present symmetry.
The initial conditions and the boundary conditions
The initial conditions give a description of the various cell densities and the various concentrations at the onset of the proliferative phase of the wound healing cascade. For the generation of simulation results, the following general function has been used to describe the shape of the wound:
$$\begin{aligned} w(\mathbf {X})= 1 - \left( 1 - \text {H}_{s}\left( Y,c^{I},c^{II}\right) \right) \text {H}_{s}\left( Y,c^{I},-c^{II}\right) ,\qquad \end{aligned}$$
(21)
with
$$\begin{aligned} \text {H}_{s}(x,a,b) = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0 &{} \text {if }\quad x < (b - a), \\ \frac{1}{2}\left( 1 + \sin \left( \frac{(x - b)\pi }{2a}\right) \right) &{} \text {if }\quad |b - x| \le a, \\ 1 &{} \text {if }\quad x > (b + a). \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
(22)
The values of the parameters \(c^{I}\) and \(c^{II}\) determine, respectively, the steepness of the boundary of the wounded area and the width of the wound. In this study, we take \(c^{I} = 2\ \text {cm}\) and \(3 \le c^{II} \le 5\ \text {cm}\). Here \(w = 0\) corresponds to completely wounded dermis and \(w = 1\) corresponds to unwounded dermis. Based on this general function for the shape of the wound, we take the following initial conditions for the modeled constituents of the dermal layer:
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} N(\mathbf {X},0)&= \left( N^{w} + \left( 1 - N^{w}\right) w(\mathbf {X})\right) \overline{N}, \\ M(\mathbf {X},0)&= \overline{M}, \\ c(\mathbf {X},0)&= (1 - w(\mathbf {X}))c^{w}, \\ \rho (\mathbf {X},0)&= \left( \rho ^{w} + \left( 1 - \rho ^{w}\right) w(\mathbf {X})\right) \overline{\rho }, \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(23)
where \(\overline{N}\), \(\overline{M}\) and \(\overline{\rho }\) are respectively, the equilibrium cell density of the fibroblast population, the equilibrium cell density of the myofibroblast population, and the equilibrium concentration of the collagen molecules of the unwounded dermis. Due to early secretion of signaling molecules by for instance platelets, signaling molecules are present in the wounded area. The constant \(c^{w}\) is the maximum of the initial concentration of the signaling molecule in the wounded area. Furthermore, we assume that there are some fibroblasts and collagen molecules present in the wounded area. The constants \(N^{w}\) and \(\rho ^{w}\) determine how much fibroblasts and collagen molecules are present minimally in the wounded area.
With respect to the initial conditions for the displacement of the dermal layer, the following holds. The initial cell density of the myofibroblast population is equal to zero everywhere in the domain of computation. Looking at Eq. (9), this implies \(\mathbf {f}(\mathbf {x},0) = \mathbf {0}\). Hence
$$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {u}(\mathbf {x},0) = \mathbf {0}\quad \forall \mathbf {x} \in {\varOmega }_{x}, \end{aligned}$$
(24)
where \({\varOmega }_{x}\) is the domain of computation in Eulerian coordinates, and \(\mathbf {x} = (x,y,z)^{\text {T}}\) are the Eulerian coordinates.
With respect to the boundary conditions for the constituents of the dermal layer, we take the following Dirichlet boundary conditions for the second and the fourth boundary
$$\begin{aligned} N = \overline{N},\ \ M = \overline{M},\ \ c = \overline{c}, \end{aligned}$$
(25)
where \(\overline{c}\) is the equilibrium concentration of the signaling molecules in the unwounded dermis. The following Neumann boundary conditions are chosen furthermore for the first and the third boundary
$$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {n}\cdot \mathbf {J}_{N} = 0,\ \ \mathbf {n}\cdot \mathbf {J}_{M} = 0,\ \ \mathbf {n}\cdot \mathbf {J}_{c} = 0, \end{aligned}$$
(26)
where \(\mathbf {n}\) is the unit outward pointing normal vector to the boundary.
With respect to the boundary conditions for the mechanical component of the model, we take the following Robin boundary conditions
$$ \begin{aligned}&\text {B.I:}\ \ \mathbf {n}\cdot \mathbf {\sigma } = \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ -s_{1}\rho w \end{bmatrix},\ \ \text {B.III:}\ \ \mathbf {n}\cdot \mathbf {\sigma } = \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}, \nonumber \\&\quad \text {B.II } \& \text {B.IV:}\ \ \mathbf {n}\cdot \mathbf {\sigma } = \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ -s_{2}\rho v \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}. \end{aligned}$$
(27)
These boundary conditions imply that the first boundary is free to move in the direction of the x-axis and the y-axis, while it experiences an opposing spring-like force per unit area in the direction of the z-axis that is proportional to the concentration of the collagen molecules and the displacement in the direction of the z-axis. With respect to the second and fourth boundary, the boundary conditions imply that these boundaries are free to move in the direction of the x-axis and the z-axis, while they experience an opposing spring-like force per unit area in the direction of the y-axis that is proportional to the concentration of the collagen molecules and the displacement in the direction of the y-axis. The boundary condition for the third boundary implies that this boundary is free to move in any direction.
The parameter value estimates
Most of the parameter values were estimated on the basis of previously conducted studies. Furthermore, we could determine some parameter values due to the fact that these values are a necessary consequence of the values chosen for other parameters. We elaborate on this in Appendix 1. The few remaining values were based on educated guesses and preliminary numerical simulations. See Table 1 in Appendix 1 for an overview of the dimensional values of the parameters.