Authors : Kapishnu P. K.

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 9 - September

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/yjbuhdm9

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26sep451

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Human tissues differ in their ability to replace cells and repair structures after damage. Some tissues rely on almost constant cell renewal like the blood and intestinal epithelium tissues. Other tissues, like heart tissue, suffer from almost complete cell loss after damage. This paper critically assesses the evidence to argue if there is one singular biological factor that accounts for the varying degrees of the regenerative potential of human tissues, or if the evidence supports a more complex, context-dependent situation. The analysis includes the following types of research: clinical and observational studies, analysis of ex vivo human tissues, and mechanistic animal models. This paper focuses on the evidence for each argument. Six major explanations were evaluated: resident stem or progenitor cells and their behavior; parenchymal cells and their post-mitotic state; the level of tissue vasculature and access to metabolic resources; immune and extracellular-matrix tissue milieu; the developmental stage of the tissue; and positional and/or injury geometry. Each of these concepts has explanatory value in some situations, but none can account for all of the phenomena: post-mitotic cells do not explain why some tissues, like cartilage, experience loss of cellular structure; tissue vascularization is necessary but not sufficient to explain the phenomenon; and the regeneration of some tissues requires macrophages, but in some cases that does not prevent the formation of scar. The synthesis argues that many factors act in combination at higher levels rather than a single dominant factor. In this context, cell differentiation imposes a limit on the outcome of regeneration while progenitor cells and their environment determine whether this limit is reached. The developmental stage of the tissues and the geometry of the injury further affect the outcome. This argument implies that there is limited value in pursuing regenerative medicine interventions based on single cell pathways.

References :

1. Barker, N., Van Es, J. H., Kuipers, J., Kujala, P., Van Den Born, M., Cozijnsen, M., Haegebarth, A., Korving, J., Begthel, H., Peters, P. J., & Clevers, H. (2007). Identification of stem cells in small intestine and colon by marker gene Lgr5. Nature, 449(7165), 1003–1007. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06196
2. Bergmann, O., Bhardwaj, R. D., Bernard, S., Zdunek, S., Barnabé-Heider, F., Walsh, S., Zupicich, J., Alkass, K., Buchholz, B. A., Druid, H., Jovinge, S., & Frisén, J. (2009). Evidence for Cardiomyocyte Renewal in Humans. Science, 324(5923), 98–102. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1164680
3. Chen, M.-F., Hwang, T.-L., & Hung, C.-F. (1991). Human Liver Regeneration After Major Hepatectomy: Annals of Surgery, 213(3), 227–229. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199103000-00008
4. Cregg, J. M., DePaul, M. A., Filous, A. R., Lang, B. T., Tran, A., & Silver, J. (2014). Functional regeneration beyond the glial scar. Experimental Neurology, 253, 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2013.12.024
5. Fliedner, T. M., Graessle, D., Paulsen, C., & Reimers, K. (2002). Structure and Function of Bone Marrow Hemopoiesis: Mechanisms of Response to Ionizing Radiation Exposure. Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals, 17(4), 405–426. https://doi.org/10.1089/108497802760363204
6. Gawriluk, T. R., Simkin, J., Thompson, K. L., Biswas, S. K., Clare-Salzler, Z., Kimani, J. M., Kiama, S. G., Smith, J. J., Ezenwa, V. O., & Seifert, A. W. (2016). Comparative analysis of ear-hole closure identifies epimorphic regeneration as a discrete trait in mammals. Nature Communications, 7(1), 11164. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11164
7. Godwin, J. W., Pinto, A. R., & Rosenthal, N. A. (2013). Macrophages are required for adult salamander limb regeneration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(23), 9415–9420. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1300290110
8. Hernandez-Segura, A., Nehme, J., & Demaria, M. (2018). Hallmarks of Cellular Senescence. Trends in Cell Biology, 28(6), 436–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2018.02.001
9. Höke, A. (2006). Mechanisms of Disease: What factors limit the success of peripheral nerve regeneration in humans? Nature Clinical Practice Neurology, 2(8), 448–454. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpneuro0262
10. Ismail, O. M., Said, U. N., & El-Omar, O. M. (2022). Adult Stem Cells for Cartilage Regeneration. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.32280
11. Lázár, E., Sadek, H. A., & Bergmann, O. (2017). Cardiomyocyte renewal in the human heart: Insights from the fall-out. European Heart Journal, 38(30), 2333–2342. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx343
12. Michalopoulos, G. K. (2010). Liver Regeneration after Partial Hepatectomy. The American Journal of Pathology, 176(1), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.2353/ajpath.2010.090675
13. Morrison, S. J., & Scadden, D. T. (2014). The bone marrow niche for haematopoietic stem cells. Nature, 505(7483), 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12984
14. Sammarco, M. C., Simkin, J., Fassler, D., Cammack, A. J., Wilson, A., Van Meter, K., & Muneoka, K. (2014). Endogenous Bone Regeneration Is Dependent Upon a Dynamic Oxygen Event. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 29(11), 2336–2345. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2261
15. Schultz, J., Patel, P. A., Aires, R., Wissing, L., Glatte, P., Seifert, M., Gentzel, M., Fitze, G., Doyle, A. M., & Sandoval-Guzmán, T. (2025). Human fingertip regeneration follows clinical phases with distinct proteomic signatures. Npj Regenerative Medicine, 10(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41536-025-00441-y
16. Sensiate, L. A., & Marques-Souza, H. (2019). Bone growth as the main determinant of mouse digit tip regeneration after amputation. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 9720. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45521-4
17. Shafqat, A., Albalkhi, I., Magableh, H. M., Saleh, T., Alkattan, K., & Yaqinuddin, A. (2023). Tackling the glial scar in spinal cord regeneration: New discoveries and future directions. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 17, 1180825. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2023.1180825
18. Silver, J., & Miller, J. H. (2004). Regeneration beyond the glial scar. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(2), 146–156. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1326
19. Simkin, J., Aloysius, A., Adam, M., Safaee, F., Donahue, R. R., Biswas, S., Lakhani, Z., Gensel, J. C., Thybert, D., Potter, S., & Seifert, A. W. (2024). Tissue-resident macrophages specifically express Lactotransferrin and Vegfc during ear pinna regeneration in spiny mice. Developmental Cell, 59(4), 496-516.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2023.12.017
20. Simkin, J., Gawriluk, T. R., Gensel, J. C., & Seifert, A. W. (2017). Macrophages are necessary for epimorphic regeneration in African spiny mice. eLife, 6, e24623. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.24623
21. Walmsley, G. G., Hu, M. S., Hong, W. X., Maan, Z. N., Lorenz, H. P., & Longaker, M. T. (2015a). A Mouse Fetal Skin Model of Scarless Wound Repair. Journal of Visualized Experiments, (95), 52297. https://doi.org/10.3791/52297
22. Walmsley, G. G., Hu, M. S., Hong, W. X., Maan, Z. N., Lorenz, H. P., & Longaker, M. T. (2015b). A Mouse Fetal Skin Model of Scarless Wound Repair. Journal of Visualized Experiments, (95), 52297. https://doi.org/10.3791/52297
23. Xu, X., Wilschut, K. J., Kouklis, G., Tian, H., Hesse, R., Garland, C., Sbitany, H., Hansen, S., Seth, R., Knott, P. D., Hoffman, W. Y., & Pomerantz, J. H. (2015). Human Satellite Cell Transplantation and Regeneration from Diverse Skeletal Muscles. Stem Cell Reports, 5(3), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2015.07.016
24. Zheng, Z., Zhang, X., Dang, C., Beanes, S., Chang, G. X., Chen, Y., Li, C.-S., Lee, K. S., Ting, K., & Soo, C. (2016). Fibromodulin Is Essential for Fetal-Type Scarless Cutaneous Wound Healing. The American Journal of Pathology, 186(11), 2824–2832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2016.07.023