Effects of Frictional Stimulation on the Structure of the Stratum Corneum

  • I. C. Mackenzie

Abstract

Although the formation of callus is a change commonly observed in the epidermis, the cellular events underlying this alteration in the structure of the stratum corneum are uncertain. Examination of the effects of friction on mouse ear epidermis and hamster cheek-pouch epithelium [5,6, 11 ] has shown that these keratinizing epithelia respond to repeated mechanical stimulation with marked increases in overall epithelial thickness and rates of cell proliferation; a new steady state, with cell formation balancing cell loss, appears to be established within the nucleated cell compartment within a few days of repeated stimulation. These findings do not entirely agree with earlier suggestions of Rubin [16] and Rothman [14, 15], who interpreted the epithelial response to friction in terms of formation of a “harder” keratin with a reduced shedding rate. However, the epidermis does appear to be more resistant to mechanical damage after adaptation to frictional stimulation [9], and this is difficult to explain solely in terms of a faster rate of cell production. Associated changes in the epithelium possibly producing a stratum corneum of increased mechanical resistance [15] therefore need to be considered. Thus, several aspects of the structure of the stratum corneum of mouse ear epidermis following frictional stimulation have been examined for any change in the type of keratin formed and to investigate possible causes of the thickening and increased mechanical resistance of this tissue following friction.

Keywords

Permeability Acetone Tyrosine Citrate Cyanide 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Christophers E (1972) Correlation between column formation, thickness and rate of new cell production in guinea pig epidermis. Vichows Arch [Cell Pathol] 10: 286–292Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harris RR, Mackenzie IC, Williams RAD (1980) An examination of the relationship between experimentally altered rates of epidermal proliferation and rates of epidermal metabolism assyed in vitro. J Invest Dermatol 74: 402–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hashimoto K (1971) Cementosome, a new interpretation of the membrane coating granule. Arch Dermatol Forsch 240: 348–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hayward AF (1979) Membrane-coating granules. Int Rev Cytol 97Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mackenzie IC (1974a) The effects of frictional stimulation on mouse ear epidermis. I. Cell proliferation. J Invest Dermatol 62: 80–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mackenzie IC (1974b) The effects of frictional stimulation on mouse ear epidermis. II. Histologic appearance and cell counts. J Invest Dermatol 63: 194–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mackenzie IC (1975) A simple method of orientation and storage of specimens of cryomicrotomy. J Periodont Res 10: 49–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Menton DN, Eisen Z(1971) Structural organization of the human stratum corneum in certain scaling disorders. J Invest Dermatol 57: 296–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mackenzie IC, Ettinger RL (1975) Differences in the response of rodent oral mucosa and skin to repeated surface trauma. J Prosthet Dent 34: 666–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mackenzie IC, Linder JE (1973) An examination of cellular organization within the stratum corneum by a silver staining method. J Invest Dermatol 61: 245–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mackenzie IC, Miles AEW (1973) The effect of chronic frictional stimulation on hamster cheek pouch epithelium. Arch Oral Biol 18: 1341–1349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Potten CS (1975) Epidermal cell production rates. J Invest Dermatol 65: 488–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pearse AGE (1968) Histochemistry. Theoretical and applied. Churchill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rothman S (1954) Physiology and biochemistry of skin. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rothman S (1964) Keratinization in historical perspective. In: Montagna W, Lobitz WC (eds) The epidermis. Academic Press, London, p. 1Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rubin L (1949) Hyperkeratosis in response to mechanical irritation. J Invest Dermatol 13: 313–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Scott EJ, Flesch P (1954) Sulfhydryl and disulfide in keratinization. Science 119: 70–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wolff E, Holubar K (1967) Odland-Körper (Membrane Coating Granules, Keratinosomen) als epidermale Lysosomen. Arch Klin Exp Dermatol 231: 1–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. C. Mackenzie
    • 1
  1. 1.Dows Institute for Dental ResearchUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations