Next Article in Journal
Does Genetic Predisposition Contribute to the Exacerbation of COVID-19 Symptoms in Individuals with Comorbidities and Explain the Huge Mortality Disparity between the East and the West?
Next Article in Special Issue
Development of an Experimental Ex Vivo Wound Model to Evaluate Antimicrobial Efficacy of Topical Formulations
Previous Article in Journal
Exosomal microRNAs as Biomarkers and Therapeutic Targets for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exosomes Secreted from Amniotic Membrane Contribute to Its Anti-Fibrotic Activity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 22
Issue 9
10.3390/ijms22094996
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Ambivalent Role of Skin Microbiota and Adrenaline in Wound Healing and the Interplay between Them

by
Arif Luqman
1,* and
Friedrich Götz
2,*
1
Biology Department, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia
2
Microbial Genetics, Interfaculty Institute of Microbiology and Infection Medicine Tübingen (IMIT), University of Tübingen, D-72076 Tübingen, Germany
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(9), 4996; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22094996
Submission received: 3 April 2021 / Revised: 27 April 2021 / Accepted: 6 May 2021 / Published: 8 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Innovations in Wound Healing and Repair 2.0)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
After skin injury, wound healing sets into motion a dynamic process to repair and replace devitalized tissues. The healing process can be divided into four overlapping phases: hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and maturation. Skin microbiota has been reported to participate in orchestrating the wound healing both in negative and positive ways. Many studies reported that skin microbiota can impose negative and positive effects on the wound. Recent findings have shown that many bacterial species on human skin are able to convert aromatic amino acids into so-called trace amines (TAs) and convert corresponding precursors into dopamine and serotonin, which are all released into the environment. As a stress reaction, wounded epithelial cells release the hormone adrenaline (epinephrine), which activates the β2-adrenergic receptor (β2-AR), impairing the migration ability of keratinocytes and thus re-epithelization. This is where TAs come into play, as they act as antagonists of β2-AR and thus attenuate the effects of adrenaline. The result is that not only TAs but also TA-producing skin bacteria accelerate wound healing. Adrenergic receptors (ARs) play a key role in many physiological and disease-related processes and are expressed in numerous cell types. In this review, we describe the role of ARs in relation to wound healing in keratinocytes, immune cells, fibroblasts, and blood vessels and the possible role of the skin microbiota in wound healing.

1. The Ambivalent Role of the Skin Microbiota in Wound Healing

It is textbook knowledge that the wound healing process occurs in four stages [1,2]: hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and maturation [3,4]. Hemostasis is the process of wound closure by clotting. The inflammatory phase begins immediately after the injury, when transudate (consisting of water, salt, and protein) leaks from the injured blood vessels and causes local swelling. The inflammation has two functions: it controls bleeding and counteracts infection. In the proliferative phase, the wound is built up with new tissue from collagen and extracellular matrix. The wound contracts with the help of myofibroblasts that grip the wound edges and pull them together with a mechanism similar to that of smooth muscle cells. Furthermore, a new network of blood vessels is established (angiogenesis) so that the granulation tissue is healthy and receives sufficient oxygen and nutrients [5]. The maturation phase is the remodeling phase of wound healing in which collagen is converted from type III to type I and the wound closes completely. The cells that were used to repair the wound but are no longer needed are removed by apoptosis, or programmed cell death.
Normally, the phases of wound healing are linear; however, wounds can progress backward or forward depending on internal and external patient conditions. Failure to progress in the stages of wound healing can lead to chronic wounds. Chronic wounds frequently occur in patients with underlying disorders such as venous or arterial insufficiency, infection, diabetes, immunosuppression, poor nutrition, cell hypoxia, dehydration, or metabolic deficiencies of the elderly [6]. The transition from the inflammatory to the proliferative phase is a key step during healing, and a compromised transition is associated with wound healing disorders that can lead to chronic or nonhealing wounds [7]. The nonhealing wounds are often complicated by bacterial infections that trigger a continuous influx of neutrophils and macrophages, further delaying wound healing [8]. However, many studies have also reported the positive effect of the skin microbiota in wound healing, either by modulating immune response, enhancing the wound healing process, or preventing pathogen infection.

2. Certain Members of the Skin Microbiota Can Have a Negative Impact on Wound Healing

The skin represents the primary interface between the host and the environment. This organ is also home to trillions of microorganisms, commensal microbiota, that play an important role in tissue homeostasis and maintaining a symbiotic relationship with the immune system [9,10]. The commensals can be remodeled over time or in response to environmental challenges. The precise relationship between the commensal microbiota and impaired wound healing remains unclear. In a diabetic mouse model, it was shown that over time the spectrum of colonizing bacteria shifted to Firmicutes species (including Staphylococcus and Aerococcus), which was correlated with enhanced expression of genes involved in defense and immune response [11]. Moreover, Corynebacterium striatum, Alcaligenes faecalis, and S. aureus have a negative impact on diabetic wound healing and severity [12], and biofilm-forming bacteria such as S. aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Peptoniphilus, Enterobacter, Citrobacter freundii, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, Stenotrophomonas, Finegoldia, and Serratia spp. impair diabetic wound healing [13,14,15].
In a study of diabetic foot ulcer (DFU), it was shown that the proportions of Bacteroidetes, Prevotella, Peptoniphilus, Porphyromonas, and Dialister were higher in the severe groups than in the mild groups, whereas that of Firmicutes was lower in the severe groups [16]. In refractory chronic venous leg ulcers, anaerobic bacteria, particularly Peptostreptococcus spp., were present in the deep tissues, where they inhibit keratinocyte wound repopulation and endothelial tubule formation [17]. Moreover, in patients with neuropathic DFU, it was shown that the most abundant genera in a study with neuropathic DFU were Staphylococcus (18%), Corynebacterium (14%), Pseudomonas (9%), and Streptococcus (7%) [12]. In this study S. aureus led to a deterioration of wound healing, whereas the typical commensals C. striatum and A. faecalis enhanced wound re-epithelialization.
S. aureus generally appears to play a negative role in wound healing. Chronic wounds are characterized by high levels of oxidative stress (OS). To verify whether OS really impairs wound healing, catalase inhibitors were applied in a diabetic mouse wound model, and it was shown that increasing OS levels were correlated with increasing chronicity [18]. Interestingly, high OS levels in the wound tissue in the absence of the skin microbiome do not lead to chronic wounds. These findings show that both high OS levels and bacteria are needed for chronic wound initiation and development. S. aureus, which is a commensal on the healthy human skin [19], is frequently reported to play a negative role in wound healing. However, only a few studies differentiate whether they are Agr+ or Agr− negative strains. Agr is a global regulator that particularly controls virulence gene expression. Agr− strains hardly produce hemolysins and phenol-soluble modulins (PSMs). Particularly, the N-formyl methionine-containing (fMet) PSMs not only have a high cytotoxic activity but also activate the FPR2 receptor, leading to neutrophil activation, chemotaxis, and cytokine release [20,21].
Regardless of the distinction between friend and foe in the skin microbiota, it can be said that overall, it tends to play a negative role. This is supported by the observation that wound repair of germ-free (GF) mice was much better compared to conventional (CV) mice with a commensal microbiota [22]. In GF mice, levels of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10, the angiogenic growth factor VEGF, and angiogenesis were higher. Overall, this study suggests that in the absence of any contact with microbiota, skin wound healing is accelerated and scarless, partially because of reduced accumulation of neutrophils, increased accumulation of alternatively activated healing macrophages, and better angiogenesis at wound sites [22]. That the microbiota is a primary cause for the pathogenesis of chronic wounds was impressively demonstrated by seeding the microbiota from a human chronic wound to a mouse that developed a similar chronic wound [23].

3. Positive Effect of Some Commensals and Probiotics on Wound Healing

The skin microbiota is an ecosystem comprising a multitude of microbial species interacting with their surroundings, including other microbes and host epithelial and immune cells [24]. We know that the skin microbiota is in principle good if it is in balance with the skin immune system and protects the skin from pathogens. We also know that the skin microbiota can be remodeled over time to a predominantly ‘bad’ population. However, it is not so easy to determine which are the good and which are the bad bugs.
It is assumed that excessive and, above all, permanent stimulation of the innate immune system and inflammatory responses of the host not only worsens wound healing but also promotes a chronic course [25,26,27]. Apparently, commensal and pathogenic bacteria differ in their immune stimulation and expression of defensins. For example, commensal staphylococci induce antimicrobial peptides/proteins (AMPs) via TLR2, EGFR, and NF-κB activation, whereas pathogenic staphylococci activate the mitogen-activated protein kinase and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/AKT signaling pathways and suppress NF-κB activation [28].
Skin wounds heal by coordinated induction of inflammation and tissue repair; thereby, commensal skin microbiota can play a positive role by the activation of type I interferon (IFN)-producing plasmacytoid DC (pDC) [29]. This activation leads to the expression of the chemokine CXCL10, which recruits pDC and acts as an antimicrobial protein to kill exposed microbiota, leading to the formation of CXCL10–bacterial DNA complexes. The bacterial DNA complexes and not the host-derived DNA activate pDC to produce type I IFNs, which accelerate wound closure by triggering skin inflammation and early T-cell-independent wound repair responses, mediated by macrophages and fibroblasts that produce major growth factors required for healing [29]. Besides, particular commensals, such as S. epidermidis, were reported to induce IL-17A(+) CD8(+) T cells that home to the epidermis, enhance innate barrier immunity, and limit pathogen invasion [9].
Although S. aureus is the most prominent cause of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) worldwide, it has been shown that the two IgG-binding proteins, SpA and Sbi, play a positive role in skin repair and wound healing, because corresponding mutants show an increased abscess formation, increased bacterial load in skin lesion, and increased skin lesion area [30]. However, what has not been shown is how the direct treatment with SpA or Sbi affects wound healing.
Some coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) species can inhibit quorum sensing (QS) or even the growth of S. aureus. Staphylococcus caprae, for example, produces the S. caprae autoinducing peptide (AIP) that inhibits QS of S. aureus and thus the expression of various virulence genes [31]. Staphylococcus lugdunensis strains produce lugdunin, a novel thiazolidine-containing cyclic peptide antibiotic that prohibits colonization by S. aureus [32]. Quite a number of CoNS produce 6-thioguanine (6-TG), a purine analog that suppresses S. aureus growth by inhibiting de novo purine biosynthesis and is also effective in wound healing [33]. Other CoNS produce lantibiotics such as epidermin and gallidermin, which inhibit cell wall biosynthesis and have broad-spectrum activity against Gram-positive pathogens [34,35], or antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) that selectively kill S. aureus and synergize with the human AMP LL-37 [36]. All these species could have a positive influence on wound healing or prevent a chronic course. Other probiotic candidates with a positive effect are lactic acid bacteria such as Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Lactobacillus rhamnosus [37]. Recombinant lactobacilli expressing the chemokine CXCL12, which is strongly chemotactic for lymphocytes, also improved wound closure in mice with hyperglycemia or peripheral ischemia, conditions associated with chronic wounds [38].
Unfortunately, the knowledge we have about the negative and positive effects of some bacteria in wound healing is still fragmentary. It is therefore important to identify the causes and elicitors of these chronic and nonhealing wounds. Often microorganisms play a role that counteracts and delays the healing process by excreting effectors such as toxins and immune stimulants that counteract and delay the healing process. Evidence is accumulating that excessive or persistent inflammatory responses triggered by bacteria are major causes of chronic and nonhealing wounds. It is therefore necessary to identify the triggers of the inflammatory reactions and find ways to neutralize their activity in order to ensure the natural course of wound healing. In Table 1, skin microbiota species that have an adverse or a promoting effect on wound healing are summarized.

4. Adrenergic Receptors (ARs) Are Expressed in Many Cells of the Skin and Contribute to Wound Healing

A stress reaction triggered by a wound leads to an increase, both locally and systemically, in the production of stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol [55,56,57,58]. These stress hormones, particularly adrenaline (epinephrine), are crucial at the first stage of wound healing, as well as for the homeostasis and inflammatory phase. However, the prolonged increased level of adrenaline delays further stages of wound healing (Figure 1A), namely the proliferative and maturation phases [59]. As adrenaline plays an important role in wound healing [44], adrenergic receptors (ARs) also come into play.
ARs are a class of G protein-coupled receptors that interact with catecholamines such as noradrenaline (norepinephrine) and adrenaline. ARs are classified as alpha or beta receptors, which can be further subdivided into α-1, α-2, ß-1, ß-2, and ß-3 and even to further subtypes [60]. ARs play a key role in many physiological or disease-related processes and are present in numerous cell types involved in wound healing processes. For example, keratinocytes express β2- and α1-AR [61,62,63]; endothelial cells express β2-AR [64,65]; immune cells, such as neutrophils and macrophages, express β2-AR [66,67]; and fibroblasts express β1-, β2-, β3-, and α1-AR [68,69,70,71,72,73].

4.1. Keratinocytes

Keratinocytes make up over 90% of the cells of the epidermis, the outermost layer of the skin. Keratinocytes undergo a differentiation process starting from the basal membrane up to the keratinized epithelium (the outermost layer). Keratinocytes represent the first cell layer to respond to stressors such as injury or invasion of pathogens by releasing cytokines or hormones like adrenaline. They express two key enzymes for adrenaline synthesis, namely tyrosine hydroxylase and phenylethanolamine-N-methyl transferase, within cytoplasmic vesicles [74]. An injury induces an increase in adrenaline level locally by upregulating the phenylethanolamine-N-methyltransferase in keratinocytes [57]. The increase in adrenaline level is followed by the adrenaline’s exocrine and paracrine effects in the wound area. Due to their re-epithelialization capacity, keratinocytes play an important role in wound healing; they proliferate and migrate to the injured site. The activation of β2-AR in keratinocytes induces an increase in the intracellular Ca++ level [75]; thus, the keratinocyte proliferation is increased as intracellular Ca++ regulates cell proliferation [76,77].
However, the β2-adrenergic receptor activation also impairs the re-epithelization due to stabilization of the actin cytoskeleton [78], which leads to a reduction in the migration ability of keratinocytes [57]. The directional migration of keratinocytes is modulated by β2-AR activation by two distinct mechanisms: cAMP-independent and cAMP-dependent mechanisms [79,80]. In keratinocytes, β2-AR activation is followed by the increase in β2-AR association with protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A) and association of PP2A with extracellular signal-regulated kinase 2 (ERK) [79]. Moreover, β2-AR activation in keratinocytes also downregulates the Akt pathway [57]. As the ERK2 pathway and the Akt pathway are promigratory signaling cascades, these phenomena lead to a nonmigratory phenotype in keratinocytes.

4.2. Immune Cells

The immune system orchestrates the wound healing process by modulating the secretion of cytokines, chemokines, and growth factors to promote cell-to-cell communication [27]. ARs somehow take a role in immune modulation in wound healing, as ARs are found in lymphocytes, macrophages, and neutrophils [81,82]. For example, in the inflammation stage, the increase in adrenaline due to injury activates the macrophage’s β2-AR and induces IL-6 production. The increase in IL-6 leads to neutrophil trafficking to the wound area. This event is important to eradicate any potential pathogen to prevent infection.
However, the extended β2-AR activation due to high adrenaline production in the wound area hinders the healing process [83]. The wound healing process can be impeded by not only the increased local adrenaline but also the high level of systemic adrenaline. A study conducted by Romana-Souza in 2010 [59] using rotation-stressed mice revealed the following changes: a delay in the infiltration of neutrophils and mast cells into the wound area, a delay in TNF-α expression, and recruitment of F4/80-positive macrophages. These series of events are modulated by β-AR activation [59,78]. The mechanisms through which β2-ARs signal, how β2-AR functions and is regulated by the sympathetic nervous system (SNS), and how β2-AR cross-talks with other signaling pathways activated by immune challenge is summarized by Lorton and Bellinger [84].

4.3. Fibroblasts

Fibroblasts engage in wound healing by providing the extracellular matrix and collagen structures to support effective wound healing and wound contraction [85]. To perform its functions, a fibroblast needs to proliferate, migrate, and differentiate, which are processes that are regulated by ARs. β1-, β2-, and β3-AR activation induces fibroblast proliferation via different pathways. β2-AR activation increases ERK 1/2 phosphorylation and thus enhances proliferation [85]. The activation of β2-AR increases migration of fibroblasts [72], but the activation of β3-AR inhibits their migration by stimulating excessive nitric oxide production and inhibiting Akt phosphorylation. After migrating and proliferating in the wound area, fibroblasts need to differentiate and produce collagen to complete their job. Studies by Romana-Souza [59,78,85] in chronically stressed mice and murine dermal fibroblast cultures showed that β-AR activation increases myofibroblast differentiation but decreases collagen production.

4.4. Blood Vessels

An injury with ruptured blood vessels leads to blood loss. The adrenaline produced by keratinocytes [57] shows a paracrine effect on the smooth muscle surrounding the blood vessels. The α1-AR activation of smooth muscle leads to muscle contraction, causing the constriction of blood vessels and finally reducing the blood loss [86,87]. The ruptured blood vessels in a wound will be recovered at the angiogenesis stage, which is, however, inhibited by adrenaline.
The prolonged increase in adrenaline, both locally in the wound area and systemically, impedes angiogenesis via β-AR activation [88]. The activation of β-AR hinders the endothelial migration via cAMP-dependent and protein kinase A (PKA)-independent mechanisms. It also reduces the formation of the fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2) and vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A), as well as proangiogenic growth factors secreted by endothelial cells and keratinocyte cells, respectively, and suppresses endothelial tubule formation, as shown in an in vitro study using cell cultures [88]. An in vivo study using a murine excisional skin wound model also showed that activation of β-AR inhibits the formation of new blood vessels in a wound [88].

5. Interplay between Adrenaline and Skin Bacteria

5.1. TA-Producing Skin Microbiota Might Accelerate Wound Healing via ARs

Many members of the genera Staphylococcus and Macrococcus are typical colonizers of the human skin [89]. Recently, it has been shown that various staphylococcal species of the human skin microbiota possess the sadA gene that encodes an aromatic amino acid decarboxylase (SadA) that converts aromatic amino acids into so-called trace amines (TAs): tryptamine, phenethylamine, and tyramine [90]. The TAs are more or less quantitatively excreted and can therefore interfere with host cell specific TA-receptors. TA-producing staphylococcal species are surprisingly common in the human gut and human skin microbiota [19,44,90]. TAs can interact with various ARs. They act as agonists of α2-AR [91,92] and as antagonists of β-AR [44,93] and of α1-AR [94]. Some studies used antagonists to block β-AR, which resulted in an increase in ERK phosphorylation, keratinocyte migration, and re-epithelialization and conclusively accelerated wound healing [72,95]. It has been proven that TAs accelerate keratinocyte migration via cAMP-dependent mechanisms by blocking the β2-AR in vitro [44]. However, the positive effect of TA on wound healing was also shown in a mouse model where not only topical administration of TA but even a TA-producing Staphylococcus epidermidis strain accelerated wound healing in contrast to its non-TA-producing mutant [44]. Since SadA is a highly promiscuous TA-producing decarboxylase in Firmicutes, the skin microbiome was specifically examined for the presence of sadA-homologous genes. SadA is a highly promiscuous TA-producing decarboxylase in Firmicutes, and its homologs were found in seven bacterial phyla and a large number of genera of the human skin microbiome [19]. The TA-producing species among the microbiota enhance wound healing most likely at the early hemostasis stage. These results support the hypothesis that skin commensals might play a positive role in wound healing (Figure 1B).
However, the role of TA-producing skin commensals in wound healing is probably not only due to the acceleration of keratinocyte migration. Because many crucial wound healing processes are slowed down by β-AR activation, it is quite possible that TAs produced by skin commensals also accelerate wound healing by initiating counteracting processes. We think that the infiltration of neutrophils and mast cells into the wound region, the recruitment of F4/80-positive macrophages, TNF-α expression, fibroblast proliferation–migration–differentiation, and angiogenesis processes might also be affected by TAs. To better understand the influence of the skin microbiota on wound healing, we need more knowledge on the molecular mechanisms of β-adrenergic receptor-mediated cross-talk between sympathetic neurons on the one hand and epithelial and immune cells on the other. We also need to know more about TA-induced receptor transactivation cascades.

5.2. Adrenaline Controls Not Only Sympathetic Nervous System but Also Quorum Sensing in Bacteria

Adrenaline also controls metabolism and virulence traits of some members of the skin microbiota. The spike in adrenaline due to injury affects not only the skin tissues themselves but also members of the skin microbiota (Figure 2). Some bacterial species that are normally found on skin, Micrococcus luteus and Cutibacterium acnes, showed an increase in biofilm formation in the presence of adrenaline [96,97]. The increased biofilm formation, particularly with C. acnes, is due to the possession of a catecholamine receptor homolog as found in eukaryotes and E. coli [96]. Catecholamine receptors in bacteria have been reported first in E. coli as a quorum sensing receptor named QseC that regulates some phenotypes, such as motility and adherence. Later, QseC homologs were reported in many other Gram-negative bacteria [98,99,100,101,102]. Recently, similar receptors were also discovered in Gram-positive bacteria, such as VicK in Enterococcus faecalis that regulates adherence to keratinocytes and biofilm formation as well [103].
Adrenaline also has been reported to support the growth of bacteria in general by forming complexes with ferric ions as a siderophore [104]. In one study, using a guinea pig model of surgical wound infection, it was shown that treatment of adrenaline together with lidocaine exhibited a 20 times higher S. aureus colonization in the wound compared to treatment with lidocaine alone [105]. Adrenaline also increases the metabolic activity of Micrococcus luteus [97] and the swarming activity of Pseudomonas fluorescens [106].

6. Topical Probiotics Are a Therapeutic Option in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds

Wound healing is a complex process and is orchestrated by a sophisticated interplay between factors. One of the intrinsic factors is adrenaline, which is crucial for the early stages of the wound healing process via AR activation. The extended AR activation, however, impedes keratinocyte migration, decreases collagen production, and delays the immune cell activities and angiogenesis process. To overcome these impediments by ARs, the administration and application of AR antagonists, particularly β-AR antagonists, showed promising results both in in vitro and in vivo studies. Studies by Romana-Souza [59,78] in stressed mice revealed that the administration of propranolol, a β-AR antagonist, reversed the delay in infiltration of neutrophils and mast cells into the wound area, a delay in TNF-α expression, and recruitment of F4/80-positive macrophages, which was later followed by faster wound closing and re-epithelization. Besides propranolol, dopamine and TA application could increase the keratinocyte migration rate by inhibiting the increase in cAMP level through partial blockade of β2-AR and eventually accelerate wound healing [44].
Another potential therapeutic strategy to enhance wound healing is via skin microbiota manipulation. The purpose of skin microbiota manipulation is to increase the number of advantageous microbiota, particularly in the wound healing process, either by preventing pathogen infection or by accelerating the healing process (Table 1). As mentioned above, TAs can be produced by skin commensals that possess sadA gene. Indeed, it has already been demonstrated that topical application of TA-producing bacteria (S. epidermidis O47) on skin could enhance wound healing [44]. Even certain lactobacilli, which are not typical skin commensals, and their lysate can increase keratinocyte migration and proliferation [49]. Moreover, lactobacilli are known to produce organic acids that show antimicrobial activity against skin pathogens and inhibit biofilm formation on wounds [37,47,48]. Skin microbiota manipulation can be also carried out by topical application of certain compounds, such as traditional Chinese medicine that has been proven to be effective in treating chronic ulcers by regulating wound microbiota [107].

7. Conclusions

Skin microbiota and ARs play an ambivalent role in wound healing. On the one hand, they can hinder the wound healing process and lead to chronic wounds; on the other hand, some bacterial species can accelerate the wound healing process and suppress the colonization of pathogens. Skin injury induces the stress hormone adrenaline, which delays early-stage wound healing by activating ß-ARs in skin cells. However, adrenaline not only affects skin cells but also promotes virulence and growth of unwanted bacteria. TA-producing skin commensals can override the effect of adrenaline and thus positively influence wound healing (Figure 3). These bacteria are part of the skin microbiota. However, their proportion varies from person to person and may be so low for some that the positive effect does not come into play. Therefore, selected TA-producing commensal bacteria may represent a promising therapeutic option in wound healing.

Author Contributions

A.L. and F.G. concepted article, collected literatures, wrote, drafted, and revised the article. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript

Funding

This work was supported by the DFG, German Research Foundation, Germany’s Excellence Strategy—EXC 2124—390838134 ‘Controlling Microbes to Fight Infections’ and Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember under project scheme of the Publication Writing and IPR Incentive Program (PPHKI).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank Sherry Duan and Allison Cowin for inviting us to submit this manuscript. We offer our sincere apologies to colleagues whose work could not be cited due to space limitations and the nature of the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ARsadrenergic receptors
ß2-ARsbeta-2-adrenergic-receptors
cAMPcyclic-adenosine monophosphate
DOPdopamine
EPIepinephrine (adrenaline)
ERKextracellular signal-regulated kinase
FGF2fibroblast growth factor 2
KGF1keratinocyte growth factor 1
PKAprotein kinase A
PEAphenethylamine
PP2Aphosphatase 2A
sadAgene encoding staphylococcal aromatic amino acid decarboxylase
SadAenzyme of staphylococcal aromatic amino acid decarboxylase
SNSsympathetic nervous system
TAstrace amines (PEA, TRY, TYM)
TRYtryptamine
TYMtyramine
VEGF-Avascular endothelial growth factor A

References

  1. Casey, G. The stages of wound healing. Nurs. N. Z. 1997, 3, 31. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gilmore, M.A. Phases of wound healing. Dimens. Oncol. Nurs. 1991, 5, 32–34. [Google Scholar]
  3. Heng, M.C.Y. Wound healing in adult skin: Aiming for perfect regeneration. Int. J. Derm. 2011, 50, 1058–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Martin, P. Wound Healing--Aiming for Perfect Skin Regeneration. Science 1997, 276, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Beyer, S.; Koch, M.; Lee, Y.H.; Jung, F.; Blocki, A. An In Vitro Model of Angiogenesis during Wound Healing Provides Insights into the Complex Role of Cells and Factors in the Inflammatory and Proliferation Phase. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 2913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Eming, S.A.; Krieg, T.; Davidson, J.M. Inflammation in Wound Repair: Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms. J. Investig. Derm. 2007, 127, 514–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Landén, N.X.; Li, D.; Ståhle, M. Transition from inflammation to proliferation: A critical step during wound healing. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 2016, 73, 3861–3885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Edwards, R.; Harding, K.G. Bacteria and wound healing. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 2004, 17, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Naik, S.; Bouladoux, N.; Linehan, J.L.; Han, S.-J.; Harrison, O.J.; Wilhelm, C.; Conlan, S.; Himmelfarb, S.; Byrd, A.L.; Deming, C.; et al. Commensal–dendritic-cell interaction specifies a unique protective skin immune signature. Nat. Cell Biol. 2015, 520, 104–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Belkaid, Y.; Hand, T.W. Role of the Microbiota in Immunity and Inflammation. Cell 2014, 157, 121–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Grice, E.A.; Snitkin, E.S.; Yockey, L.J.; Bermudez, D.M.; Liechty, K.W.; Segre, J.A.; Mullikin, J.; Blakesley, R.; Young, A.; Chu, G.; et al. Longitudinal shift in diabetic wound microbiota correlates with prolonged skin defense response. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 14799–14804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Kalan, L.R.; Meisel, J.S.; Loesche, M.A.; Horwinski, J.; Soaita, I.; Chen, X.; Uberoi, A.; Gardner, S.E.; Grice, E.A. Strain- and Species-Level Variation in the Microbiome of Diabetic Wounds Is Associated with Clinical Outcomes and Therapeutic Efficacy. Cell Host Microbe 2019, 25, 641–655.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dowd, S.E.; Sun, Y.; Secor, P.R.; Rhoads, D.D.; Wolcott, B.M.; James, G.A.; Wolcott, R.D. Survey of bacterial diversity in chronic wounds using Pyrosequencing, DGGE, and full ribosome shotgun sequencing. BMC Microbiol. 2008, 8, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Mendoza, R.A.; Hsieh, J.-C.; Galiano, R.D. The Impact of Biofilm Formation on Wound Healing. In Wound Healing—Current Perspectives; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mihai, M.M.; Holban, A.M.; Giurcăneanu, C.; Popa, L.G.; Buzea, M.; Filipov, M.; Lazăr, V.; Chifiriuc, M.C.; Popa, M.I. Identification and phenotypic characterization of the most frequent bacterial etiologies in chronic skin ulcers. Romanian J. Morphol. Embryol. 2014, 55, 1401–1408. [Google Scholar]
  16. Park, J.-U.; Oh, B.; Lee, J.P.; Choi, M.-H.; Lee, M.-J.; Kim, B.-S. Influence of Microbiota on Diabetic Foot Wound in Comparison with Adjacent Normal Skin Based on the Clinical Features. Biomed. Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 7459236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Stephens, P.; Wall, I.; Wilson, M.; Hill, K.; Davies, C.; Hill, C.; Harding, K.; Thomas, D. Anaerobic cocci populating the deep tissues of chronic wounds impair cellular wound healing responses in vitro. Br. J. Derm. 2003, 148, 456–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kim, J.H.; Yang, B.; Tedesco, A.; Lebig, E.G.D.; Ruegger, P.M.; Xu, K.; Borneman, J.; Martins-Green, M. High Levels of Oxidative Stress and Skin Microbiome are Critical for Initiation and Development of Chronic Wounds in Diabetic Mice. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 19318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Luqman, A.; Zabel, S.; Rahmdel, S.; Merz, B.; Gruenheit, N.; Harter, J.; Nieselt, K.; Götz, F. The Neuromodulator-Encoding sadA Gene Is Widely Distributed in the Human Skin Microbiome. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 573679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cheung, G.Y.C.; Joo, H.-S.; Chatterjee, S.S.; Otto, M. Phenol-soluble modulins—Critical determinants of staphylococcal virulence. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2014, 38, 698–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Peschel, A.; Otto, M. Phenol-soluble modulins and staphylococcal infection. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2013, 11, 667–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Canesso, M.C.C.; Vieira, A.T.; Castro, T.B.R.; Schirmer, B.G.A.; Cisalpino, D.; Martins, F.S.; Rachid, M.A.; Nicoli, J.R.; Teixeira, M.M.; Barcelos, L.S. Skin Wound Healing Is Accelerated and Scarless in the Absence of Commensal Microbiota. J. Immunol. 2014, 193, 5171–5180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Wolcott, R.; Sanford, N.; Gabrilska, R.; Oates, J.; Wilkinson, J.; Rumbaugh, K. Microbiota is a primary cause of pathogenesis of chronic wounds. J. Wound Care 2016, 25, S33–S43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Flowers, L.; Grice, E.A. The Skin Microbiota: Balancing Risk and Reward. Cell Host Microbe 2020, 28, 190–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Jones, S.G.; Edwards, R.; Thomas, D.W. Inflammation and Wound Healing: The Role of Bacteria in the Immuno-Regulation of Wound Healing. Int. J. Low. Extrem. Wounds 2004, 3, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Raymond, S.L.; Holden, D.C.; Mira, J.C.; Stortz, J.A.; Loftus, T.J.; Mohr, A.M.; Moldawer, L.L.; Moore, F.A.; Larson, S.D.; Efron, P.A. Microbial recognition and danger signals in sepsis and trauma. Biochim. Biophys Acta Mol. Basis Dis. 2017, 1863, 2564–2573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Strbo, N.; Yin, N.; Stojadinovic, O. Innate and Adaptive Immune Responses in Wound Epithelialization. Adv. Wound Care 2014, 3, 492–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Wanke, I.; Steffen, H.; Christ, C.; Krismer, B.; Götz, F.; Peschel, A.; Schaller, M.; Schittek, B. Skin Commensals Amplify the Innate Immune Response to Pathogens by Activation of Distinct Signaling Pathways. J. Investig. Derm. 2011, 131, 382–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Di Domizio, J.; Belkhodja, C.; Chenuet, P.; Fries, A.; Murray, T.; Mondéjar, P.M.; DeMaria, O.; Conrad, C.; Homey, B.; Werner, S.; et al. The commensal skin microbiota triggers type I IFN–dependent innate repair responses in injured skin. Nat. Immunol. 2020, 21, 1034–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Gonzalez, C.D.; Ledo, C.; Cela, E.; Stella, I.; Xu, C.; Ojeda, D.S.; Frenette, P.S.; Gómez, M.I. The good side of inflammation: Staphylococcus aureus proteins SpA and Sbi contribute to proper abscess formation and wound healing during skin and soft tissue infections. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA) Mol. Basis Dis. 2019, 1865, 2657–2670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Paharik, A.E.; Parlet, C.P.; Chung, N.; Todd, D.A.; Rodriguez, E.I.; Van Dyke, M.J.; Cech, N.B.; Horswill, A.R. Coagulase-Negative Staphylococcal Strain Prevents Staphylococcus aureus Colonization and Skin Infection by Blocking Quorum Sensing. Cell Host Microbe 2017, 22, 746–756.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Zipperer, A.; Konnerth, M.C.; Laux, C.; Berscheid, A.; Janek, D.; Weidenmaier, C.; Burian, M.; Schilling, N.A.; Slavetinsky, C.; Marschal, M.; et al. Human commensals producing a novel antibiotic impair pathogen colonization. Nat. Cell Biol. 2016, 535, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Chin, D.; Goncheva, M.I.; Flannagan, R.S.; Deecker, S.R.; Guariglia-Oropeza, V.; Ensminger, A.W.; Heinrichs, D.E. Coagulase-negative staphylococci release a purine analog that inhibits Staphylococcus aureus virulence. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 1887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Götz, F.; Perconti, S.; Popella, P.; Werner, R.; Schlag, M. Epidermin and gallidermin: Staphylococcal lantibiotics. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2014, 304, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Schnell, N.; Entian, K.-D.; Schneider, U.; Götz, F.; Zähner, H.; Kellner, R. Prepeptide sequence of epidermin, a ribosomally synthesized antibiotic with four sulphide-rings. Nat. Cell Biol. 1988, 333, 276–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nakatsuji, T.; Chen, T.H.; Narala, S.; Chun, K.A.; Two, A.M.; Yun, T.; Shafiq, F.; Kotol, P.F.; Bouslimani, A.; Melnik, A.V.; et al. Antimicrobials from human skin commensal bacteria protect against Staphylococcus aureus and are deficient in atopic dermatitis. Sci. Transl. Med. 2017, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Fijan, S.; Frauwallner, A.; Langerholc, T.; Krebs, B.; ter Haar née Younes, J.A.; Heschl, A.; Turk, D.M.; Rogelj, I. Efficacy of Using Probiotics with Antagonistic Activity against Pathogens of Wound Infections: An Integrative Review of Literature. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 7585486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Vågesjö, E.; Öhnstedt, E.; Mortier, A.; Lofton, H.; Huss, F.; Proost, P.; Roos, S.; Phillipson, M. Accelerated wound healing in mice by on-site production and delivery of CXCL12 by transformed lactic acid bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 1895–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Kim, J.H.; Ruegger, P.R.; Lebig, E.G.; VanSchalkwyk, S.; Jeske, D.R.; Hsiao, A.; Borneman, J.; Martins-Green, M. High Levels of Oxidative Stress Create a Microenvironment That Significantly Decreases the Diversity of the Microbiota in Diabetic Chronic Wounds and Promotes Biofilm Formation. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kennedy, P.; Brammah, S.; Wills, E. Burns, biofilm and a new appraisal of burn wound sepsis. Burns 2010, 36, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Boldock, E.; Surewaard, B.G.J.; Shamarina, D.; Na, M.; Fei, Y.; Ali, A.; Williams, A.; Pollitt, E.J.G.; Szkuta, P.; Morris, P.; et al. Human skin commensals augment Staphylococcus aureus pathogenesis. Nat. Microbiol. 2018, 3, 881–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Williams, H.; Campbell, L.; Crompton, R.A.; Singh, G.; McHugh, B.J.; Davidson, D.J.; McBain, A.J.; Cruickshank, S.M.; Hardman, M.J. Microbial Host Interactions and Impaired Wound Healing in Mice and Humans: Defining a Role for BD14 and NOD2. J. Invest. Dermatol. 2018, 138, 2264–2274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Kalan, L.; Loesche, M.; Hodkinson, B.P.; Heilmann, K.; Ruthel, G.; Gardner, S.E.; Grice, E.A. Redefining the Chronic-Wound Microbiome: Fungal Communities Are Prevalent, Dynamic, and Associated with Delayed Healing. mBio 2016, 7, e01058-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Luqman, A.; Muttaqin, M.Z.; Yulaipi, S.; Ebner, P.; Matsuo, M.; Zabel, S.; Tribelli, P.M.; Nieselt, K.; Hidayati, D.; Götz, F. Trace amines produced by skin bacteria accelerate wound healing in mice. Commun. Biol. 2020, 3, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. O’Sullivan, J.N.; Rea, M.C.; O’Connor, P.M.; Hill, C.; Ross, R.P. Human skin microbiota is a rich source of bacteriocin-producing staphylococci that kill human pathogens. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2019, 95, fiy241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Williams, M.R.; Costa, S.K.; Zaramela, L.S.; Khalil, S.; Todd, D.A.; Winter, H.L.; Sanford, J.A.; O’Neill, A.M.; Liggins, M.C.; Nakatsuji, T.; et al. Quorum sensing between bacterial species on the skin protects against epidermal injury in atopic dermatitis. Sci. Transl. Med. 2019, 11, eaat8329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lopes, E.G.; Moreira, D.A.; Gullón, P.; Gullón, B.; Cardelle-Cobas, A.; Tavaria, F.K. Topical application of probiotics in skin: Adhesion, antimicrobial and antibiofilm in vitro assays. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 122, 450–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Valdéz, J.C.; Peral, M.C.; Rachid, M.; Santana, M.; Perdigón, G. Interference of Lactobacillus plantarum with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in vitro and in infected burns: The potential use of probiotics in wound treatment. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2005, 11, 472–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Mohammedsaeed, W.; Cruickshank, S.; McBain, A.J.; O’Neill, C.A. Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG Lysate Increases Re-Epithelialization of Keratinocyte Scratch Assays by Promoting Migration. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 16147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Wang, Y.; Kuo, S.; Shu, M.; Yu, J.; Huang, S.; Dai, A.; Two, A.; Gallo, R.L.; Huang, C.-M. Staphylococcus epidermidis in the human skin microbiome mediates fermentation to inhibit the growth of Propionibacterium acnes: Implications of probiotics in acne vulgaris. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 98, 411–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Cogen, A.L.; Yamasaki, K.; Muto, J.; Sanchez, K.M.; Alexander, L.C.; Tanios, J.; Lai, Y.; Kim, J.E.; Nizet, V.; Gallo, R.L. Staphylococcus epidermidis antimicrobial delta-toxin (phenol-soluble modulin-gamma) cooperates with host antimicrobial peptides to kill group A Streptococcus. PLoS ONE. 2010, 5, e8557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lai, Y.; Di Nardo, A.; Nakatsuji, T.; Leichtle, A.; Yang, Y.; Cogen, A.L.; Wu, Z.-R.; Hooper, L.V.; Schmidt, R.R.; von Aulock, S.; et al. Commensal bacteria regulate Toll-like receptor 3-dependent inflammation after skin injury. Nat. Med. 2009, 15, 1377–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Imegwu, O.; Chang, T.H.; Steinberg, J.J.; Levenson, S.M. Staphylococcus aureus peptidoglycan ameliorates cyclophosphamide-induced impairment of wound healing. Wound Repair Regen. 1997, 5, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Linehan, J.L.; Harrison, O.J.; Han, S.J.; Byrd, A.L.; Vujkovic-Cvijin, I.; Villarino, A.V.; Sen, S.K.; Shaik, J.; Smelkinson, M.; Tamoutounour, S.; et al. Non-classical Immunity Controls Microbiota Impact on Skin Immunity and Tissue Repair. Cell 2018, 172, 784–796.e18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Palmieri, T.L.; Levine, S.; Schonfeld-Warden, N.; O’mara, M.S.; Greenhalgh, D.G. Hypothalamic–Pituitary–Adrenal Axis Response to Sustained Stress after Major Burn Injury in Children. J. Burn. Care Res. 2006, 27, 742–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Sedowofia, K.; Barclay, C.; Quaba, A.; Smith, A.; Stephen, R.; Thomson, M.; Watson, A.; McIntosh, N. The systemic stress response to thermal injury in children. Clin. Endocrinol. 1998, 49, 335–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sivamani, R.K.; Pullar, C.E.; Manabat-Hidalgo, C.G.; Rocke, D.M.; Carlsen, R.C.; Greenhalgh, D.G.; Isseroff, R.R. Stress-Mediated Increases in Systemic and Local Epinephrine Impair Skin Wound Healing: Potential New Indication for Beta Blockers. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Stojadinovic, O.; Gordon, K.A.; Lebrun, E.; Tomic-Canic, M. Stress-Induced Hormones Cortisol and Epinephrine Impair Wound Epithelization. Adv. Wound Care 2012, 1, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Romana-Souza, B.; Otranto, M.; Vieira, A.M.; Filgueiras, C.C.; Fierro, I.M.; Monte-Alto-Costa, A. Rotational stress-induced increase in epinephrine levels delays cutaneous wound healing in mice. BrainBehav. Immun. 2010, 24, 427–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Wikberg, J.E. The pharmacological classification of adrenergic alpha 1 and alpha 2 receptors and their mechanisms of action. Acta Physiol. Scand. Suppl. 1979, 468, 1–99. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  61. Gazith, J.; Cavey, M.T.; Cavey, D.; Shroot, B.; Reichert, U. Characterization of the beta-adrenergic receptors of cultured human epidermal keratinocytes. Biochem. Pharm. 1983, 32, 3397–3403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Steinkraus, V.; Mak, J.C.; Pichlmeier, U.; Mensing, H.; Ring, J.; Barnes, P.J. Autoradiographic mapping of beta-adrenoceptors in human skin. Arch. Dermatol. Res. 1996, 288, 549–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wijaya, L.K.; Stumbles, P.A.; Drummond, P.D. Tumor necrosis factor α induces α1B-adrenergic receptor expression in keratinocytes. Cytokine 2020, 125, 154851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Howell, R.E.; Albelda, S.M.; Daise, M.L.; Levine, E.M. Characterization of beta-adrenergic receptors in cultured human and bovine endothelial cells. J. Appl. Physiol. 1988, 65, 1251–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Steinberg, S.F.; Jaffe, E.A.; Bilezikian, J.P. Endothelial cells contain beta adrenoceptors. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Arch. Pharm. 1984, 325, 310–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. De Coupade, C.; Gear, R.W.; Dazin, P.F.; Sroussi, H.Y.; Green, P.G.; Levine, J.D. Beta 2-adrenergic receptor regulation of human neutrophil function is sexually dimorphic. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2004, 143, 1033–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Verhoeckx, K.C.; Doornbos, R.P.; Witkamp, R.F.; van der Greef, J.; Rodenburg, R.J. Beta-adrenergic receptor agonists induce the release of granulocyte chemotactic protein-2, oncostatin M, and vascular endothelial growth factor from macrophages. Int Immunopharmacol. 2006, 6, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Berrettini, W.H.; Bardakjian, J.; Cappellari, C.B.; Barnett, A.L., Jr.; Albright, A.; Nurnberger, J.I., Jr.; Gershon, E.S. Skin fibroblast beta-adrenergic receptor function in manic-depressive illness. Biol. Psychiatry 1987, 22, 1439–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Furlan, C.; Sterin-Borda, L.; Borda, E. Activation of beta3 adrenergic receptor decreases DNA synthesis in human skin fibroblasts via cyclic GMP/nitric oxide pathway. Cell Physiol. Biochem. 2005, 16, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Huang, H.; Gibson, G. Altered beta-adrenergic receptor-stimulated cAMP formation in cultured skin fibroblasts from Alzheimer donors. J. Biol. Chem. 1993, 268, 14616–14621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Liao, M.-H.; Liu, S.-S.; Peng, I.-C.; Tsai, F.-J.; Huang, H.H. The stimulatory effects of alpha1-adrenergic receptors on TGF-beta1, IGF-1 and hyaluronan production in human skin fibroblasts. Cell Tissue Res. 2014, 357, 681–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pullar, C.E.; Isseroff, R.R. The beta 2-adrenergic receptor activates pro-migratory and pro-proliferative pathways in dermal fibroblasts via divergent mechanisms. J. Cell Sci. 2006, 119, 592–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Sterin-Borda, L.; Furlan, C.; Orman, B.; Borda, E. Differential regulation on human skin fibroblast by α1 adrenergic receptor subtypes. Biochem. Pharm. 2007, 74, 1401–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pullar, C.E.; Rizzo, A.; Isseroff, R.R. beta-Adrenergic receptor antagonists accelerate skin wound healing: Evidence for a catecholamine synthesis network in the epidermis. J. Biol. Chem. 2006, 281, 21225–21235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Koizumi, H.; Yasui, C.; Fukaya, T.; Ohkawara, A.; Ueda, T. Beta-Adrenergic Stimulation Induces Intracellular Ca++ Increase in Human Epidermal Keratinocytes. J. Investig. Derm. 1991, 96, 234–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Munaron, L.; Antoniotti, S.; Lovisolo, D. Intracellular calcium signals and control of cell proliferation: How many mechanisms? J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2004, 8, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pinto, M.C.X.; Kihara, A.H.; Goulart, V.A.; Tonelli, F.M.; Gomes, K.N.; Ulrich, H.; Resende, R.R. Calcium signaling and cell proliferation. Cell. Signal. 2015, 27, 2139–2149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Romana-Souza, B.; Porto, L.C.; Monte-Alto-Costa, A. Cutaneous wound healing of chronically stressed mice is improved through catecholamines blockade. Exp. Derm. 2010, 19, 821–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Pullar, C.E.; Chen, J.; Isseroff, R.R. PP2A activation by beta2-adrenergic receptor agonists: Novel regulatory mechanism of keratinocyte migration. J Biol. Chem. 2003, 278, 22555–22562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Pullar, C.E.; Isseroff, R.R. Cyclic AMP mediates keratinocyte directional migration in an electric field. J. Cell Sci. 2005, 118, 2023–2034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Kavelaars, A. Regulated expression of α-1 adrenergic receptors in the immune system. Brain Behav. Immun. 2002, 16, 799–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kohm, A.P.; Sanders, V.M. Norepinephrine and beta 2-adrenergic receptor stimulation regulate CD4+ T and B lymphocyte function in vitro and in vivo. Pharmacol. Rev. 2001, 53, 487–525. [Google Scholar]
  83. Kim, M.H.; Gorouhi, F.; Ramirez, S.; Granick, J.L.; Byrne, B.A.; Soulika, A.M.; Simon, S.I.; Isseroff, R.R. Catecholamine stress alters neutrophil trafficking and impairs wound healing by beta2-adrenergic receptor-mediated upregulation of IL-6. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2014, 134, 809–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Lorton, D.; Bellinger, D.L. Molecular mechanisms underlying beta-adrenergic receptor-mediated cross-talk between sympathetic neurons and immune cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 5635–5665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Romana-Souza, B.; Otranto, M.; Almeida, T.F.; Porto, L.C.; Monte-Alto-Costa, A. Stress-induced epinephrine levels compromise murine dermal fibroblast activity through beta-adrenoceptors. Exp. Dermatol. 2011, 20, 413–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Chotani, M.A.; Flavahan, S.; Mitra, S.; Daunt, D.; Flavahan, N.A. Silent alpha(2C)-adrenergic receptors enable cold-induced vasoconstriction in cutaneous arteries. Am. J. Physiol. Circ. Physiol. 2000, 278, 1075–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Ekenvall, L.; E Lindblad, L.; Norbeck, O.; Etzell, B.M. alpha-Adrenoceptors and cold-induced vasoconstriction in human finger skin. Am. J. Physiol. Content 1988, 255, 1000–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. O’Leary, A.P.; Fox, J.M.; Pullar, C.E. Beta-Adrenoceptor Activation Reduces Both Dermal Microvascular Endothelial Cell Migration via a cAMP-Dependent Mechanism and Wound Angiogenesis. J. Cell Physiol. 2015, 230, 356–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Götz, F.; Bannerman, T.; Schleifer, K.H. The Genera Staphylococcus and Macrococcus. In Procaryotes; Dworkin, M., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 5–75. [Google Scholar]
  90. Luqman, A.; Nega, M.; Nguyen, M.T.; Ebner, P.; Götz, F. SadA-Expressing Staphylococci in the Human Gut Show Increased Cell Adherence and Internalization. Cell Rep. 2018, 22, 535–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Luqman, A.; Ebner, P.; Reichert, S.; Sass, P.; Kabagema-Bilan, C.; Heilmann, C.; Ruth, P.; Götz, F. A new host cell internalisation pathway for SadA-expressing staphylococci triggered by excreted neurochemicals. Cell Microbiol. 2019, 21, e13044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  92. Ma, G.; Bavadekar, S.A.; Schaneberg, B.T.; Khan, I.A.; Feller, D.R. Effects of synephrine and beta-phenethylamine on human alpha-adrenoceptor subtypes. Planta Med. 2010, 76, 981–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kleinau, G.; Pratzka, J.; Nürnberg, D.; Grüters, A.; Führer-Sakel, D.; Krude, H.; Köhrle, J.; Schöneberg, T.; Biebermann, H. Differential Modulation of Beta-Adrenergic Receptor Signaling by Trace Amine-Associated Receptor 1 Agonists. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e27073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Luqman, A.; Kharisma, V.D.; Ruiz, R.A.; Götz, F. In Silico and In Vitro Study of Trace Amines (TA) and Dopamine (DOP) Interaction with Human Alpha 1-Adrenergic Receptor and the Bacterial Adrenergic Receptor QseC. Cell. Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 54, 888–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Steenhuis, P.; Huntley, R.E.; Gurenko, Z.; Yin, L.; Dale, B.A.; Fazel, N.; Isseroff, R.R. Adrenergic Signaling in Human Oral Keratinocytes and Wound Repair. J. Dent. Res. 2010, 90, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Borrel, V.; Thomas, P.; Catovic, C.; Racine, P.-J.; Konto-Ghiorghi, Y.; Lefeuvre, L.; Duclairoir-Poc, C.; Zouboulis, C.C.; Feuilloley, M.G.J. Acne and Stress: Impact of Catecholamines on Cutibacterium acnes. Front. Med. 2019, 6, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Danilova, N.D.; Solovyeva, T.V.; Mart’Yanov, S.V.; Zhurina, M.V.; Gannesen, A.V. Stimulatory Effect of Epinephrine on Biofilms of Micrococcus luteus C01. Microbiology 2020, 89, 493–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Bearson, B.L.; Bearson, S.M.; Lee, I.S.; Brunelle, B.W. The Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium QseB response regulator negatively regulates bacterial motility and swine colonization in the absence of the QseC sensor kinase. Microb. Pathog. 2010, 48, 214–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Clarke, M.B.; Hughes, D.T.; Zhu, C.; Boedeker, E.C.; Sperandio, V. The QseC sensor kinase: A bacterial adrenergic receptor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 10420–10425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Lesouhaitier, O.; Véron, W.; Chapalain, A.; Madi, A.; Blier, A.-S.; Dagorn, A.; Connil, N.; Chevalier, S.; Orange, N.; Feuilloley, M. Gram-Negative Bacterial Sensors for Eukaryotic Signal Molecules. Sensors 2009, 9, 6967–6990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  101. Njoroge, J.; Sperandio, V. Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli Virulence Regulation by Two Bacterial Adrenergic Kinases, QseC and QseE. Infect. Immun. 2011, 80, 688–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Weigel, W.A.; DeMuth, D.R.; Qse, B.C. A two-component bacterial adrenergic receptor and global regulator of virulence in Enterobacteriaceae and Pasteurellaceae. Mol. Oral Microbiol. 2016, 31, 379–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Cambronel, M.; Nilly, F.; Mesguida, O.; Boukerb, A.M.; Racine, P.-J.; Baccouri, O.; Borrel, V.; Martel, J.; Fécamp, F.; Knowlton, R.; et al. Influence of Catecholamines (Epinephrine/Norepinephrine) on Biofilm Formation and Adhesion in Pathogenic and Probiotic Strains of Enterococcus faecalis. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Sandrini, S.M.; Shergill, R.; Woodward, J.; Muralikuttan, R.; Haigh, R.D.; Lyte, M.; Freestone, P.P. Elucidation of the Mechanism by Which Catecholamine Stress Hormones Liberate Iron from the Innate Immune Defense Proteins Transferrin and Lactoferrin. J. Bacteriol. 2009, 192, 587–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  105. Stratford, A.F.; Zoutman, D.E.; Davidson, J.S. Effect of lidocaine and epinephrine on Staphylococcus aureus in a guinea pig model of surgical wound infection. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2002, 110, 1275–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Biaggini, K.; Barbey, C.; Borrel, V.; Feuilloley, M.; Déchelotte, P.; Connil, N. The pathogenic potential of Pseudomonas fluorescens MFN1032 on enterocytes can be modulated by serotonin, substance P and epinephrine. Arch. Microbiol. 2015, 197, 983–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Wu, M.; Li, Y.; Guo, D.; Kui, G.; Li, B.; Deng, Y.; Li, F. Microbial Diversity of Chronic Wound and Successful Management of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Evid. Based Complementary Altern. Med. 2018, 2018, 9463295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijms 22 04996 g001 550
Figure 1. The role of adrenaline and TA in wound healing. (A) Cells of the epidermis, dermis, and hypodermis express ß-AR and are therefore responsive to elevated adrenaline levels triggered by wounding as a stress reaction. Sustained ß-AR activation due to elevated adrenaline levels results in a number of sequelae: (a) impairment of the migration ability of keratinocytes and re-epithelization; (b) delay of infiltration of the immune cells to the wound, as well as delay of cytokine production and macrophage recruitment; (c) decrease in collagen production and migration of fibroblasts; (d) inhibition of angiogenesis by endothelial vascular cells. (B) TAs, particularly those produced by skin microbiota, antagonize the effect of adrenaline by interacting allosterically with ß2-AR, thus boosting wound closing.
Figure 1. The role of adrenaline and TA in wound healing. (A) Cells of the epidermis, dermis, and hypodermis express ß-AR and are therefore responsive to elevated adrenaline levels triggered by wounding as a stress reaction. Sustained ß-AR activation due to elevated adrenaline levels results in a number of sequelae: (a) impairment of the migration ability of keratinocytes and re-epithelization; (b) delay of infiltration of the immune cells to the wound, as well as delay of cytokine production and macrophage recruitment; (c) decrease in collagen production and migration of fibroblasts; (d) inhibition of angiogenesis by endothelial vascular cells. (B) TAs, particularly those produced by skin microbiota, antagonize the effect of adrenaline by interacting allosterically with ß2-AR, thus boosting wound closing.
Ijms 22 04996 g001
Ijms 22 04996 g002 550
Figure 2. Adrenaline affects skin bacteria. The adrenaline level by injury stress also affects some skin bacteria possessing QseBC-regulated pathways. Adrenaline acts as a QseBC quorum-sensing activator, thus inducing bacterial motility, biofilm formation, adherence, and toxin production via this signaling pathway. In addition, adrenaline may also support bacterial growth and metabolism by complexing ferric ions as a siderophore, thus supplying these bacteria with additional iron.
Figure 2. Adrenaline affects skin bacteria. The adrenaline level by injury stress also affects some skin bacteria possessing QseBC-regulated pathways. Adrenaline acts as a QseBC quorum-sensing activator, thus inducing bacterial motility, biofilm formation, adherence, and toxin production via this signaling pathway. In addition, adrenaline may also support bacterial growth and metabolism by complexing ferric ions as a siderophore, thus supplying these bacteria with additional iron.
Ijms 22 04996 g002
Ijms 22 04996 g003 550
Figure 3. Interplay between trace amines (TAs) and adrenaline in wound healing. An injured skin tissue triggers an increased adrenaline level locally and systemically. The prolonged adrenaline exposure in the wound might hinder the healing process, mainly due to β2-AR activation. Some skin commensals are able to produce TAs (blue bent arrow), which act as β2-AR partial antagonists and help to accelerate the wound healing. On the other hand, adrenaline is also able to activate QseBC-regulated pathways and thus promote virulence traits of some members of the skin microbiota (red dashed arrow) that may delay wound healing.
Figure 3. Interplay between trace amines (TAs) and adrenaline in wound healing. An injured skin tissue triggers an increased adrenaline level locally and systemically. The prolonged adrenaline exposure in the wound might hinder the healing process, mainly due to β2-AR activation. Some skin commensals are able to produce TAs (blue bent arrow), which act as β2-AR partial antagonists and help to accelerate the wound healing. On the other hand, adrenaline is also able to activate QseBC-regulated pathways and thus promote virulence traits of some members of the skin microbiota (red dashed arrow) that may delay wound healing.
Ijms 22 04996 g003
Table
Table 1. Microbiota species that have an adverse (A) or a promoting (B) effect on wound healing.
Table 1. Microbiota species that have an adverse (A) or a promoting (B) effect on wound healing.
SpeciesEffectorMode of ActionReferences
(A) Adverse effect on wound healing
Peptostreptococcus spp.
(P. magnus, P. vaginalis, and P. asaccharolyticus)		Bacterial supernatantInhibit fibroblast proliferation, keratinocyte proliferation and repopulation, and endothelial tubule formation[17]
Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Peptoniphilus sp., Stenotrophomonas sp., Finegoldia sp., Serratia sp., Bacillus sp., Enterococcus sp., Enterobacter aerogenes, Acinetobacter baumanii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, Aspergillus fumigatus, Enterobacter cloacae, Corynebacterium frankenforstense, Corynebacterium striatum, Alcaligenes faecalis and Acinetobacter sp.BiofilmRelated to wound chronicity[12,13,39,40]
Skin commensalsCan be particulate cell wall peptidoglycanAugment S. aureus pathogenesis[41]
BacteriaMuramyl dipeptideDelay wound repair by reducing re-epithelialization; increasing inflammation; and upregulating of murine β-defensins 1, 3, and 14[42]
Pathogenic staphylococciSecreted factorsActivate the mitogen-activated protein kinase and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/AKT signaling pathways and suppress NF-κB activation[28]
Pathogenic fungi Wound necrosis[43]
(B) Promoting effect on wound healing
Staphylococcus epidermidis and possibly other skin commensals with sadA gene Trace aminesAccelerate wound healing by partially antagonizing the β-adrenergic receptor[19,44]
Skin commensals predominantly from StaphylococcusBacteriocinsInhibit pathogenic Gram-positive bacteria such as Cutibacterium acnes, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and MRSA[45]
Staphylococcus caprae and other coagulase-negative staphylococciAutoinducing peptideInhibit quorum sensing of S. aureus[31,46]
LactobacilliOrganic acidsAntimicrobial activity against skin pathogens and prevent biofilm formation[37,47,48]
Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus reuteriLysateIncrease keratinocyte proliferation and migration[49]
S. epidermidisShort chain fatty acidsSuppress the growth of S. aureus and C. acnes[50]
S. epidermidisDelta-toxin (PSMγ)Cooperates with the host-derived antimicrobial peptides in the innate immune system to eliminate pathogens[51]
S. epidermidis Induces IL-17A+ CD8+ T cells, enhances innate barrier immunity, and limits pathogen invasion[9]
S. epidermidis and S. hominisAntimicrobial peptidesSelectively kill S. aureus and synergize with the human AMP LL-37[36]
Commensal staphylococciSecreted factorsInduce expression of the AMPs HBD-3 and RNase7 in primary human keratinocytes via Toll-like receptor (TLR)-2, EGFR, and NF-κB activation[28]
Commensal staphylococciLipoteichoic acidInhibit both inflammatory cytokine release from keratinocytes and inflammation triggered by injury through a TLR2-dependent mechanism[52]
S. aureusPeptidoglycanAmeliorate cyclophosphamide-impaired wound healing[53]
StaphylococciSurface proteins SpA and SbiInitiate signaling cascades that lead to the early recruitment of neutrophils, modulate their lifespan in the skin milieu, and contribute to proper abscess formation and bacterial eradication[30]
Skin commensals Trigger activation of neutrophils to express the chemokine CXCL10 to kill exposed microbiota; activate pDC to produce type I IFNs, which accelerate wound closure by triggering skin inflammation and early T-cell-independent wound repair responses[29]
Skin commensals Induce T-cell responses that lead to protection from pathogens and accelerated skin wound closure[54]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Luqman, A.; Götz, F. The Ambivalent Role of Skin Microbiota and Adrenaline in Wound Healing and the Interplay between Them. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 4996. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22094996

AMA Style

Luqman A, Götz F. The Ambivalent Role of Skin Microbiota and Adrenaline in Wound Healing and the Interplay between Them. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021; 22(9):4996. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22094996

Chicago/Turabian Style

Luqman, Arif, and Friedrich Götz. 2021. "The Ambivalent Role of Skin Microbiota and Adrenaline in Wound Healing and the Interplay between Them" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22, no. 9: 4996. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22094996

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop