[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.204.108.121. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
May 1990

Eosinophilic FasciitisIncreased Collagen Production and Type I Procollagen Messenger RNA Levels in Fibroblasts Cultured From Involved Skin

Author Affiliations

From the Departments of Dermatology and Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, Pa (Drs Kähäri and Uitto); the Department of Medical Biochemistry, University of Turku (Finland) (Dr Heino); and the Departments of Internal Medicine (Dr Niskanen) and Dermatology (Dr Fräki), University of Kuopio (Finland).

Arch Dermatol. 1990;126(5):613-617. doi:10.1001/archderm.1990.01670290057008
Abstract

• Two patients with eosinophilic fasciitis were studied to elucidate the activation of collagen production in this disorder. Histologic examination of biopsy specimens from the involved area of skin revealed the presence of inflammatory cell infiltrates and various degrees of collagen accumulation in the dermis, subcutis, fascia, and underlying muscle. Fibroblast cultures initiated from the involved skin exhibited 2.0- to 3.7-fold increased collagen production when compared with control fibroblast cultures established from the uninvolved skin of the same patients. Eosinophilic fasciitis fibroblasts also displayed 2.4- to 6.2-fold higher steady-state levels of type I procollagen messenger RNA than did the control cells, indicating pretranslational activation of type I procollagen gene expression. In addition, cellular fibronectin messenger RNA steady-state levels were elevated 1.9- to 3.3-fold in eosinophilic fasciitis fibroblasts. These results suggest that fibroblasts in the involved skin of patients with eosinophilic fasciitis exhibit an activated phenotype, similar to that of scleroderma fibroblasts, leading to accumulation of collagen in the skin and the underlying structures.

(Arch Dermatol. 1990;126:613-617)

×