Skip to main content
PLOS Computational Biology logoLink to PLOS Computational Biology
. 2025 Jun 9;21(6):e1013162. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013162

History-dependent switch-like differentiation of keratinocytes in response to skin barrier damage

Elisa Domíguez-Hüttinger 1,*, Eliezer Flores-Garza 2, José Luis Caldú-Primo 3, Harley Day 2, Abihail Roque Ramírez 4, Reiko J Tanaka 2,*
Editor: Ricardo Martinez-Garcia5
PMCID: PMC12176289  PMID: 40489727

Abstract

The epidermis is formed by layers of keratinocytes with increasing levels of differentiation towards the outer skin called skin barrier, which protects our body from environmental stressors and dehydration. When skin barrier is damaged, keratinocyte differentiation is triggered, and terminally differentiated keratinocytes express skin barrier components, achieving skin barrier homeostasis. However, the dynamic and quantitative understanding of how skin barrier homeostasis is achieved remains unknown. To elucidate how keratinocyte differentiation is dynamically affected by skin barrier damage, especially in the presence of infection, we developed a mechanistic model of keratinocyte differentiation by integrating experimental results from 101 manually curated publications. To extract the key regulatory structure of the model, we applied model reduction, called the kernel reduction methodology to obtain the minimal reaction network. The key regulatory structure is characterised by positive feedback with cooperativity between Np63 and Stat3, two master regulators of keratinocyte differentiation. This regulatory structure gives rise to bistable behaviour for the expression of terminal differentiation markers of keratinocytes when the skin barrier is damaged and the extracellular calcium level is varied. We validated the model by confirming it produces the history-dependent and switch-like keratinocyte differentiation observed in in vitro reversibility assays. Analysis of the validated model shows that bacterial infection augments keratinocytes’ sensitivity to skin barrier damage by decreasing the level required for differentiation and de-differentiation. Our results suggest the mechanisms by which skin barrier homeostasis is maintained even when the skin is exposed to fluctuating environments that perturb the barrier composition.

Author summary

We propose and validate a mechanistic mathematical model that can uncover how keratinocyte differentiation is affected by skin barrier damage and infection. Our model represents the key regulatory structure of the complex network of biochemical interactions that map infectious microenvironments to keratinocyte differentiation states. We identify a keratinocyte differentiation motif, the key regulatory structure of the model, by applying systematic model reduction. The motif comprises positive feedback and cooperativity, which gives rise to a bistable dose-response behaviour for keratinocyte differentiation in response to skin barrier damage. We validate our model by confirming it reproduces the results of in vitro keratinocyte differentiation assays. Model analysis shows that innate immune responses triggered by infection decreases the threshold levels required for differentiation and de-differentiation, making keratinocyte differentiation more sensitive to skin barrier damage. These results help elucidate how infectious skin microenvironments trigger the dynamic regulation of keratinocyte differentiation and understand the role of infection in skin diseases such as eczema and psoriasis on epidermal barrier homeostasis.

1. Introduction

The epidermis is a stratified epithelial tissue formed by layers of keratinocytes with increasing levels of differentiation. Terminally differentiated keratinocytes in the uppermost layer of the skin constitute the skin barrier, a physical and chemical barrier that protects our body from environmental aggressors [1]. The skin barrier is maintained by feedback regulation of keratinocyte differentiation. This feedback regulation is triggered by skin barrier damage [27] via activation of transcription factors and signalling molecules that induce expression of terminal differentiation markers [815]. Keratinocyte differentiation is also modulated by infection, which often accompanies skin barrier impairment [1621]. Skin barrier homeostasis is the ability of skin to maintain its barrier function despite external perturbations. Loss of skin barrier homeostasis is associated with impaired terminal differentiation of keratinocytes that results in the formation of a deficient skin barrier, leading to pathological phenotypes such as atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma [2224] in which increased pathogen loads prevail.

Here, we aim to understand how infection and skin barrier damage contribute to skin barrier homeostasis by elucidating how keratinocyte differentiation is regulated by skin barrier damage, especially in the presence of infection.

Clarifying and predicting the relationship between keratinocyte differentiation, skin barrier damage, and infection is challenging from a purely empirical perspective due to the difficulties in performing quantitative experiments at a cellular level in a stratified multi-layered tissue, despite recent advances in in vitro epidermal or full-thickness skin models [25]. Systems biology approaches, in which experimental data is integrated into predictive mathematical models, have proven to be effective in revealing the causal relationship between microenvironments and differentiation of, for example, T-cells [26], mesenchymal stem cells [26], and root stem cells [27]. However, mathematical models of dynamical processes for keratinocyte differentiation have been limited so far. Several regulatory networks of keratinocyte differentiation have been previously reconstructed at a cellular level using dynamical data from western blot experiments [28], public repositories [29], high throughput experiments [8] and, more recently, single-cell expression analysis [30,31]. However, these networks describe only the relationship between snapshot measurements without considering dynamical processes that are critical to elucidate causal relationships. As a result, the networks do not allow us to systematically analyse the effects of microenvironments on keratinocyte differentiation as they cannot reproduce the dynamical behaviour of keratinocyte differentiation.

In this paper, we propose a mechanistic model of keratinocyte differentiation that can predict the dynamic effect of microenvironments (characterised by levels and durations of skin barrier damage and infection) on keratinocyte differentiation. By integrating several experimental observations from published papers, the model describes how individual molecular players collectively contribute to keratinocyte differentiation, forming a regulatory network that maps microenvironments to keratinocytes’ differentiation states. We further propose a keratinocyte differentiation motif by distilling the essential regulatory features of the regulatory network and show that the motif demonstrates a history-dependent switch-like differentiation of keratinocytes in response to skin barrier damage.

2. Results

2.1. Construction of a regulatory network for keratinocyte differentiation

We constructed a regulatory network for keratinocyte differentiation to investigate how microenvironments (levels and durations of skin barrier damage and infection) affect keratinocyte differentiation (Fig 1A). The network structure was determined by integrating the findings from 101 manually curated relevant publications (Section A in S1 Text and S1 Table).

Fig 1. Regulatory network for keratinocyte differentiation in response to the changes in the extracellular calcium level modulated by infection.

Fig 1

(A) Input-output relationship between microenvironmental signals and the expression of Terminal Differentiation Markers (TDM); (B) Regulatory network underlying keratinocyte differentiation. All regulations correspond to transcriptional events unless otherwise noted. PKC: Protein-Kinase C, EGFR: Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor.

The output of the network for keratinocyte differentiation is the expression level of Terminal Differentiation Markers (TDM) in keratinocytes, such as filaggrin (Flg), antimicrobial peptides (AMP), corneodesmosomes, and lipid processing enzymes. The high/low TDM expression level represents the differentiated/non-differentiated state of keratinocytes [32,33]. We consider the extracellular calcium level as the primary input of the regulatory network because its change is a major trigger of keratinocyte differentiation [15] as observed in in vitro calcium-switch experiments [34] and the extracellular calcium level rises in all epidermis layers upon skin barrier damage. The expression level of TDM [6,7] is altered by changes in the extracellular calcium level across the epidermis [35], especially for AMP [6,7], corneodesmosomes [28,36], and lipid processing enzymes [30,37]. As the second input of the regulatory network, we consider the concentration of active NFkB triggered by pathogen-induced innate immune responses, to evaluate the effects of infection on keratinocyte differentiation. Epidermal infection alters the calcium-mediated induction of keratinocyte differentiation [1720,3842] by interfering with the regulatory network.

The regulatory network for keratinocyte differentiation consists of 9 state variables: the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR), two AP1 transcription factors (cJun and JunB), p53, Np63, Notch, cMyc, miRNA203 and Stat3 (Fig 1B). These state variables are dynamically regulated with each other through transcriptional regulation, competitive inhibition, and post-translational and epigenetic modifications (detailed in Section A in S1 Text and in S1 Table).

To confirm that the regulatory network (Fig 1) robustly reproduces keratinocyte differentiation upon an increase in extracellular calcium levels, we formulate the network as an executable Boolean model (Section B and Fig A in S1 Text). This Boolean model allows us to describe the coupled dynamics of the nine state variables without requiring parameter values which are difficult to obtain for large systems. The model output is a discrete, quantitative and coarse-grained description of the all-or-nothing TDM response to an all-or-nothing calcium input. The deterministic steady states (fixed points and cyclic attractors) describe on/off patterns of the state variables that correspond to stable expression profiles triggered by different inputs.

The synchronous model simulation, under both low (basal) and high calcium conditions, finds four fixed point attractors, one of which corresponds to the differentiated state of keratinocytes with high TDM expression levels, and an additional two-state cyclic attractor that alternates between low and high TDM expression levels (Fig A(i,ii) in S1 Text). We confirmed that the four fixed point attractors are conserved under an asynchronous update regime (Fig A(iv) in S1 Text). The model has a much larger basin of attraction for the TDM state under the high, compared to the low (basal), calcium condition (Fig A(iii) in S1 Text), meaning that the differentiated state is much more likely to be observed under high calcium conditions (51.37% vs 7.42%). This result is consistent with that observed in calcium-switch experiments, where the population of differentiated keratinocytes increases dramatically upon increases in calcium [34].

2.2. Keratinocyte differentiation motif with positive feedback loops and cooperativity

The regulatory network (Fig 1) summarises most of the currently confirmed processes relevant to keratinocyte differentiation in response to skin barrier damage and infection. However, the network is too complex to fit to currently available experimental data (quantitative measurements of dynamic gene expression responses to inputs such as calcium and bacterial components) to quantitatively characterise how keratinocyte differentiation is affected by skin barrier damage and infection. We therefore reduced the network by applying the kernel reduction methodology [43] to obtain the minimal reaction network, which we refer to as the keratinocyte differentiation motif (Fig 2A). The kernel reduction is an algorithmic approach to identify the minimal essential network that preserves the input-output dynamics of the original network by sequentially removing intermediate nodes while keeping their regulatory interactions. We decided to remove all nodes of the regulatory network except for Stat3 and Np63. We kept Stat3 and Np63 because they directly regulate TDM, and their expression levels are measured in several calcium switch experiments. The details of the reduction process are described in Section D in S1 Text. We confirmed the minimality of the network as it robustly reproduces the experimentally observed dynamic and long-term responses to different pathological microenvironments, as detailed below, and this agreement with empirical observations is lost upon pruning further variables and interactions.

Fig 2. The keratinocyte differentiation motif.

Fig 2

(A) Kinetic model. (B) Model fitting to TDM gene expression in response to a step increase in the calcium concentration (from 0.05 to 1.2 mM CaCl2); data from [8] represents the distribution (mean and standard deviation) over different terminal differentiation marker genes (SLPI, S100A7, and RNASE7, IVL and FLG), each of which was normalized by its maximal value. Error bars represent the dispersion (SD) of the individual genes. The steady state (TDMss) obtained by the model simulation is shown as a grey dotted line. (C) Validation of the kinetic model. The model reproduces the keratinocyte differentiation experiments from [44], in which a 3-day transient calcium challenge (shown in orange) is added to the medium and the reversion of keratinocyte differentiation is observed.

The keratinocyte differentiation motif consists of Stat3 and Np63 that directly regulate the TDM expression in response to the changes in the extracellular calcium level and infectious microenvironment (NFkB). An increase in the external calcium level (upon barrier damage) leads to an increase in Stat3 and a decrease in Np63 levels through molecular mechanisms described in Section A in S1 Text. Stat3 and Np63 increase each other’s level, forming a positive feedback loop. Np63 expression is induced by cooperative auto-induction, forming the second positive feedback loop (Fig 2A). The TDM expression is induced by the increase in the Np63 expression level and inhibited by the activated Stat3. The expression of Np63 is induced by innate immune responses, represented here by the NFkB level.

The kinetics of the keratinocyte differentiation motif is described by

dStat3(t)dt=Ca+vNp63·Np63(t)dStat3·Stat3(t), (1)
dNp63(t)dt=vaNp63·Np63(t)nHkNp63nH+Np63(t)nH+vStat3·Stat3(t)+NFkBNp63(t)·(dNp63+dCa·Ca) (2)
dTDM(t)dt=aTDM·Np63(t)*eβt1+iTDMStat3(t)dTDM·TDM(t), (3)

where Stat3(t), Np63(t) and TDM(t) represent the expression levels of Stat3, Np63 and TDM, respectively. The direct regulatory interactions are modelled by the law of mass action kinetics. Stat3 expression is induced by calcium with a constant rate, Ca, which is a lumped parameter representing the effects of calcium on the dynamics of Stat3, and by Np63 with a rate, vNp63. We describe the auto-induction of Np63 expression by a Hill function (with a maximal rate, vaNp63, a half-maximal inductor concentration, kNp63, and a Hill-coefficient, nH) because it is mediated by the formation of protein complexes. Induction of Np63 expression via a Stat3-dependent and NFkB-dependent pathways are described with rates, vStat3 and NFkB, respectively. Expression of TDM is inhibited by Stat3 with rate, iTDM, and is augmented by Np63 methylation of their promoters [4547]. It is modelled with the convolution of Np63(t) with a decaying exponential (aTDM·Np63(t)*eβt) with maximal rate, aEDC, and the exponent, β, quantifying the memory of the methylation. The natural degradation of Stat3, Np63 and TDM are described by the rates, dStat3, dNp63, and dTDM, respectively. Np63 degradation is also calcium-dependent with a weighting, dCa. We obtained the kinetic model parameters by minimising the difference between the model simulation and the dynamic experimental data from primary human keratinocytes [8] using a global optimisation algorithm (Table 1). The fitted model captures a slow steady increase of TDM expression in keratinocytes (AMP SLPI, S100A7, RNASE, filaggrin and involucrin) [8] for 48h upon calcium challenge (Fig 2B and Fig C in S1 Text).

Table 1. Nominal parameters of the kinetic model.

Symbol Nominal values Units Description
Inputs
Ca 0.1 (low) to 5 (high) [a.u.]/[t] Ca-mediated induction of Stat3
NFkB 0 [a.u.]/[t] Infection level-mediated induction of Np63
Stat3-specific parameters
vNp63 2 1/[t] Rate of Stat3 production induced by Np63 (positive feedback #1)
dStat3 1 1/[t] Stat3 degradation rate
Np63-specific parameters
vaNp63 10 1/[t] Maximal rate of Np63 production induced by Np63 (positive feedback #2)
vStat3 1 1/[t] Rate of infection-mediated production of Np63
nH 3 NA Hill-coefficient for the positive feedback of Np63 on Np63
kNp63 1.35 [y] Half-maximal Np63 concentration for Np63 production
vStat3 1 1/[t] Rate of Np63 production induced by Stat3 (positive feedback #3)
dNp63 6 1/[t] Natural degradation rate of Np63
dCa 0.5 1/[y] Rate of Ca-mediated Np63 degradation
Epidermal differentiation markers-specific parameters
aTDM 68 x103 1/[t] Rate of TDM expression induced by Np63
iTDM 500 1/[y] Rate of Stat3-mediated inhibition of TDM expression
dTDM 0.1 1/[t] TDM degradation rate
β 451 1/[t] Decaying exponential for the effects of Np63 on TDM expression

We validated our model with calibrated parameters by confirming that the model dynamics reflect the qualitative dynamical behaviour of the reversible keratinocyte differentiation assays [44] (Fig 2C), the decaying dynamics of Np63 expression observed in two independent experiments [8,48] (Fig D in S1 Text), and the dynamics of filaggrin expression observed in a keratinocyte differentiation assay in human normal epidermal keratinocytes [36] (Fig E in S1 Text).

2.3. Switch-like and history-dependent keratinocyte differentiation in response to change in the extracellular calcium level

We demonstrated that the kinetic model of keratinocyte differentiation shows a bistable behaviour by deriving the nullclines of the 2D Np63-Stat3 projection of the model (Section E in S1 Text). The two stable steady states in our model are visualised as the points of intersection between the Stat3 nullcline (a first-order polynomial) and the Np63 nullcline (a sigmoidal function) (Fig 3A). The effects of changing the calcium level (the primary input of our model) on the stable steady states are visualised on the Np63-Stat3 phase plane, onto which the state trajectories of the model can be projected as these two state variables are uncoupled from the output (TDM). We investigated the steady state behaviour of the model under low and high calcium concentrations by simulating varying levels of CaCl2 [mM], where the low calcium concentration corresponds to that typically used in in vitro calcium switch experiments, and the high concentration is one order of magnitude higher (Fig 3A). As the calcium level increases, the Stat3 nullcline shifts upwards while the Np63 nullcline straightens, eventually losing the low Np63 steady state. As a result, only the undifferentiated state with low Np63 is stable for low calcium conditions, while two steady states, corresponding to a low and a high Np63 (and Stat3), exist for medium calcium conditions.

Fig 3. Bistability observed in the kinetic model.

Fig 3

(A) The Np63-Stat3 phase plane. Three intersection points of the Np63 and Stat3 nullclines for intermediate calcium levels correspond to two stable (filled stars) and one unstable (open blue star) steady states. Increasing the calcium levels shifts the Stat3 nullcline up and straightens the Np63 nullcline, leading to the loss of the low stable steady state. (B) Bifurcation diagrams for the three state variables as the extracellular calcium level as a bifurcation parameter. Bistabliltiy is observed between the threshold calcium concentrations C- and C + , at which an abrupt change in the state variables is observed.

Bifurcation analysis confirms the bistability for Np63, Stat3 and TDM with the calcium level as a bifurcation parameter between the threshold calcium concentrations, C- and C+ (Fig 3B). Increasing calcium concentration above the threshold, C+ , results in an abrupt increase in the levels of the state variables, which persists until the calcium concentration is decreased to a value below the second threshold, C-, at which an abrupt change from high to low is observed. The bistability is consistent with a reversible switch-like history-dependent keratinocyte differentiation observed in experimental studies in response to a change in the extracellular calcium level. For example, the TDM expression levels are stabilised eventually at a low or high state [36,49,50] after a transient change triggered by a change in the extracellular calcium level. When stabilised at a high state due to a sufficiently long-lasting increase in the calcium level, it remains at a high state for days after the extracellular calcium level decreases [44].

2.4. Modulation of keratinocyte differentiation by infection

To investigate how the infectious microenvironment modulates keratinocyte differentiation, we conducted a similar bifurcation analysis but with an increased level of active NFkB to mimic pathogen-induced innate immune responses (Fig 4). In the keratinocyte differentiation motif, an increase in the level of active NFkB leads to an increase in the Np63 production rate as NFkB increases the transcription rate of Np63 by inducing activation of p300 [5153].

Fig 4. Effect of infection-induced immune response (NFkB) on keratinocyte differentiation motif.

Fig 4

(A) Bifurcation diagrams for the 3 state variables (Stat3, Np63 and TDM) with three levels of NFkB (0, 0.1 and 0.25). The larger the NFkB level is, the smaller the activation threshold level for the calcium (C+), making the system more sensitive to barrier damage. (B) C+ linearly decreases with NFkB (variation of NFkB: 0:0.01:1).

Increasing NFkB in our model lowers the activation thresholds of calcium (C+) required for keratinocyte differentiation. A lower threshold represents the skin being more sensitive to barrier damage: more subtle barrier damage (a slight increase in the extracellular calcium level) is sufficient to trigger the TDM expression in the presence of NFkB. Small and transient barrier damage can lead to a burst in TDM. This result is consistent with the increased sensitivity of keratinocyte differentiation to barrier damage in the presence of pathogens [1720,3840,54].

3. Discussion

This paper proposed the first mechanistic model of keratinocyte differentiation. The model development comprised of network assembly, simulation, and validation of both the full and the minimal regulatory networks of keratinocyte differentiation.

To develop the mechanistic model, we first conducted an extensive literature search and assembled a regulatory network of intercellular interactions involved in keratinocyte differentiation. We then confirmed that calcium-triggered keratinocyte differentiation emerges from this network by dynamically simulating it using a Boolean network approach. As the whole network is too complex to analyse its dynamics, we derived the minimal regulatory network of keratinocyte differentiation by identifying the smallest set of variables and their interactions that can robustly reproduce the experimentally observed keratinocyte differentiation in response to calcium and infection. The resulting keratinocyte differentiation motif is then mathematically represented using kinetic ordinary differential equations. Model parameter values were obtained by global optimisation to fit the model to time-course data of calcium switch experiments. Bifurcation analysis of our model reproduces the abrupt history-dependent keratinocyte differentiation in response to the changes in the calcium level reported experimentally. Bifurcation analysis also showed that infection-induced immune responses shape the decision-making process of keratinocyte differentiation by shifting the extracellular calcium level thresholds required for stable TDM expression.

Our proposed keratinocyte differentiation motif comprises the smallest set of variables and their interactions that can reproduce various empirical observations of keratinocyte differentiation in response to calcium and infection derived from different experimental conditions. Adding more nodes could improve the model’s ability to capture more experimental results, including the deleterious effects of HPV [42,49,55] and inflammation [54,56,57] on keratinocyte differentiation. However, it would also add more parameters to the model. Given the scarcity of available quantitative and longitudinal data, obtaining reliable estimates for those parameters would be difficult. We hope our work will motivate experimentalists to generate more quantitative time-resolved measurements of keratinocyte differentiation.

In summary, our mathematical model analysis uncovered the keratinocyte differentiation motif, comprised of the interplay between Stat3 and Np63, as the key regulatory structure underlying keratinocyte differentiation in response to the changes in the extracellular calcium level. The response is modulated through infection-induced immune responses, as infection increases the sensitivity to calcium-mediated increase in TDM expression by increasing Np63 production.

Our work contributes to elucidating the decision-making processes underlying keratinocyte differentiation [15] and its role in shaping the homeostasis of the epidermis and other stratified epithelial tissues. Skin barrier homeostasis has been previously modelled using multi-scale models [5860], which however do not consider the mechanisms of keratinocyte differentiation. The proposed minimal network of keratinocyte differentiation is mechanistic yet simple enough to be incorporated into such a multi-scale model of epidermal dynamics. It will be interesting to analyse the contribution of the tissue-level feedback from skin barrier function to keratinocyte differentiation and epidermal homeostasis and elucidate how the differentiation state of keratinocytes affects the immune response to pathogens (secretion of AMP) and barrier restoration in response to barrier damage and pathogen challenge. Such a model would contribute to the understanding of the mechanisms through which treatments to enhance keratinocyte differentiation directly (e.g., vitamin D [61]) or indirectly through interference with IL4 signalling (Dupilumab [62,63]) help the restoration of epidermal homeostasis in diseases such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis.

4. Methods

4.1. Curation of dynamic data for epidermal differentiation markers

We assembled expression data of mRNAs (measured by qPCR and by microarray) and proteins (measured by Western Blot) from 14 references (S2 Table) to test the validity of our kinetic model of keratinocyte differentiation. It includes time-course data of the TDM (involucrin, fillagrin, transglutaminase [36,49,50,64], AMP HBD [7] and the internal regulators of epidermal differentiation (ΔNp63 [48] and pEGFR, cMyc and cJun [28]) in response to calcium challenges (a sudden increase from 0.05mM to 1.2mM or 1.3mM CaCl) under control conditions and inflammatory [56,64,65] or TLR-activating [16] microenvironmental conditions, as well as a reversibility experiment [44] through which the memory of keratinocyte differentiation can be quantitatively assessed.

4.2. Parameter optimisation of the kinetic model for keratinocyte differentiation

We used the GlobalSearch function in Matlab R2022a to minimise the difference between predicted and experimentally determined mean-over individual gene expression of the TDM: SLPI, S100A7 RNASE (AMP), and filaggrin and involucrin measured by Toufighi et al. [8]. Calcium switch experiments were simulated by increasing the values of Ca from 0.1 to 2.

4.3. Bifurcation analysis

Steady states were computed numerically using vpasolve function in Matlab R2022a, and their stability was evaluated by assessing the sign of the eigenvectors of the corresponding Jacobian matrix.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Individual regulatory interactions underlying the regulatory network for keratinocyte differentiation in response to the changes in the extracellular calcium level modulated by infection assembled from 101 references.

(XLSX)

pcbi.1013162.s001.xlsx (30.6KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. Expression data of epidermal differentiation markers corresponding to levels of mRNAs (measured by qPCR and by microarray) or proteins (measured by Western Blot) assembled from 14 references.

(XLSX)

pcbi.1013162.s002.xlsx (24.1KB, xlsx)
S1 Text. The Supplementary Text contains Supplementary Sections A-F, Supplementary Figures A-F and Supplementary References.

(PDF)

pcbi.1013162.s003.pdf (2.2MB, pdf)

Data Availability

The code and data are stored in our public GitHub repository: https://github.com/ElisaDominguezHuettinger/Keratinocyte_Differentiation.

Funding Statement

EDH acknowledges funding from the Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica (PAPIIT) UNAM IA207822 (https://dgapa.unam.mx/index.php/impulso-a-la-investigacion/papiit) and from CONACyT Ciencia de Frontera 2022 (https://conahcyt.mx/ciencia-de-frontera/), project number 319600. The funders did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Goleva E, Berdyshev E, Leung DY. Epithelial barrier repair and prevention of allergy. J Clin Invest. 2019;129(4):1463–74. doi: 10.1172/JCI124608 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhang C, Merana GR, Harris-Tryon T, Scharschmidt TC. Skin immunity: dissecting the complex biology of our body’s outer barrier. Mucosal Immunol. 2022;15(4):551–61. doi: 10.1038/s41385-022-00505-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Törmä H, Lindberg M, Berne B. Skin barrier disruption by sodium lauryl sulfate-exposure alters the expressions of involucrin, transglutaminase 1, profilaggrin, and kallikreins during the repair phase in human skin in vivo. J Invest Dermatol. 2008;128(5):1212–9. doi: 10.1038/sj.jid.5701170 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Grubauer G, Elias PM, Feingold KR. Transepidermal water loss: the signal for recovery of barrier structure and function. J Lipid Res. 1989;30(3):323–33. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2275(20)38361-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.de Koning HD, van den Bogaard EH, Bergboer JGM, Kamsteeg M, van Vlijmen-Willems IMJJ, Hitomi K. Expression profile of cornified envelope structural proteins and keratinocyte differentiation-regulating proteins during skin barrier repair. Br J Dermatol. 2012;166(6):1245–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Harder J, Dressel S, Wittersheim M, Cordes J, Meyer-Hoffert U, Mrowietz U, et al. Enhanced expression and secretion of antimicrobial peptides in atopic dermatitis and after superficial skin injury. J Invest Dermatol. 2010;130(5):1355–64. doi: 10.1038/jid.2009.432 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kisich KO, Carspecken CW, Fiéve S, Boguniewicz M, Leung DYM. Defective killing of Staphylococcus aureus in atopic dermatitis is associated with reduced mobilization of human beta-defensin-3. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;122(1):62–8. 10.1016/j.jaci.2008.04.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Toufighi K, Yang J-S, Luis NM, Aznar Benitah S, Lehner B, Serrano L, et al. Dissecting the calcium-induced differentiation of human primary keratinocytes stem cells by integrative and structural network analyses. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015;11(5):e1004256. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Oh IY, Albea DM, Goodwin ZA, Quiggle AM, Baker BP, Guggisberg AM, et al. Regulation of the dynamic chromatin architecture of the epidermal differentiation complex is mediated by a c-Jun/AP-1-modulated enhancer. J Invest Dermatol. 2014;134(9):2371–80. doi: 10.1038/jid.2014.44 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Niehues H, Tsoi LC, van der Krieken DA, Jansen PAM, Oortveld MAW, Rodijk-Olthuis D, et al. Psoriasis-Associated Late Cornified Envelope (LCE) Proteins Have Antibacterial Activity. Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 2017;137(11):2380–8. 10.1016/j.jid.2017.06.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Meisel JS, Sfyroera G, Bartow-McKenney C, Gimblet C, Bugayev J, Horwinski J, et al. Commensal microbiota modulate gene expression in the skin. Microbiome. 2018;6(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0404-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Percoco G, Merle C, Jaouen T, Ramdani Y, Bénard M, Hillion M, et al. Antimicrobial peptides and pro-inflammatory cytokines are differentially regulated across epidermal layers following bacterial stimuli. Exp Dermatol. 2013;22(12):800–6. doi: 10.1111/exd.12259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sayama K, Komatsuzawa H, Yamasaki K, Shirakata Y, Hanakawa Y, Ouhara K, et al. New mechanisms of skin innate immunity: ASK1-mediated keratinocyte differentiation regulates the expression of beta-defensins, LL37, and TLR2. Eur J Immunol. 2005;35(6):1886–95. doi: 10.1002/eji.200425827 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fessing MY, Mardaryev AN, Gdula MR, Sharov AA, Sharova TY, Rapisarda V, et al. p63 regulates Satb1 to control tissue-specific chromatin remodeling during development of the epidermis. J Cell Biol. 2011;194(6):825–39. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201101148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mascia F, Denning M, Kopan R, Yuspa SH. The black box illuminated: signals and signaling. J Invest Dermatol. 2012;132(3 Pt 2):811–9. doi: 10.1038/jid.2011.406 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Borkowski AW, Park K, Uchida Y, Gallo RL. Activation of TLR3 in keratinocytes increases expression of genes involved in formation of the epidermis, lipid accumulation, and epidermal organelles. J Invest Dermatol. 2013;133(8):2031–40. doi: 10.1038/jid.2013.39 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Duckney P, Wong HK, Serrano J, Yaradou D, Oddos T, Stamatas GN. The role of the skin barrier in modulating the effects of common skin microbial species on the inflammation, differentiation and proliferation status of epidermal keratinocytes. BMC Res Notes. 2013;6:474. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-6-474 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lee SE, Kim JM, Jeong SK, Jeon JE, Yoon HJ, Jeong MK, et al. Protease-activated receptor-2 mediates the expression of inflammatory cytokines, antimicrobial peptides, and matrix metalloproteinases in keratinocytes in response to Propionibacterium acnes. Arch Dermatol Res. 2010;302(10):745–56. 10.1007/s00403-010-1074-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dommisch H, Chung WO, Rohani MG, Williams D, Rangarajan M, Curtis M, et al. Protease-activated receptor 2 mediates human beta-defensin 2 and CC chemokine ligand 20 mRNA expression in response to proteases secreted by Porphyromonas gingivalis. Infect Immun. 2007;75(9):4326–33. 10.1128/IAI.00455-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Abtin A, Eckhart L, Gläser R, Gmeiner R, Mildner M, Tschachler E. The antimicrobial heterodimer S100A8/S100A9 (calprotectin) is upregulated by bacterial flagellin in human epidermal keratinocytes. J Invest Dermatol. 2010;130(10):2423–30. doi: 10.1038/jid.2010.158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wanke I, Skabytska Y, Kraft B, Peschel A, Biedermann T, Schittek B. Staphylococcus aureus skin colonization is promoted by barrier disruption and leads to local inflammation. Exp Dermatol. 2013;22:153–5. 10.1111/exd.12083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Guttman-Yassky E, Suárez-Fariñas M, Chiricozzi A, Nograles KE, Shemer A, Fuentes-Duculan J, et al. Broad defects in epidermal cornification in atopic dermatitis identified through genomic analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124(6):1235-1244.e58. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2009.09.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Suárez-Fariñas M, Tintle SJ, Shemer A, Chiricozzi A, Nograles K, Cardinale I, et al. Nonlesional atopic dermatitis skin is characterized by broad terminal differentiation defects and variable immune abnormalities. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;127(4):954-64.e1-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2010.12.1124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Winge MCG, Kellman LN, Guo K, Tang JY, Swetter SM, Aasi SZ, et al. Advances in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Nat Rev Cancer. 2023;23(7):430–49. doi: 10.1038/s41568-023-00583-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Meesters LD, Niehues H, Johnston L, Smits JPH, Zeeuwen PLJM, Brown SJ, et al. Keratinocyte signaling in atopic dermatitis: Investigations in organotypic skin models toward clinical application. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2023;151(5):1231–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2023.02.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Martinez-Sanchez ME, Mendoza L, Villarreal C, Alvarez-Buylla ER. A Minimal Regulatory Network of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Factors Recovers Observed Patterns of CD4+ T Cell Differentiation and Plasticity. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015;11(6):e1004324. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004324 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Azpeitia E, Benítez M, Vega I, Villarreal C, Alvarez-Buylla ER. Single-cell and coupled GRN models of cell patterning in the Arabidopsis thaliana root stem cell niche. BMC Syst Biol. 2010;4:134. doi: 10.1186/1752-0509-4-134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Saeki Y, Nagashima T, Kimura S, Okada-Hatakeyama M. An ErbB receptor-mediated AP-1 regulatory network is modulated by STAT3 and c-MYC during calcium-dependent keratinocyte differentiation. Exp Dermatol. 2012;21(4):293–8. 10.1111/j.1600-0625.2012.01453.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Yoon HK, Sohn K-C, Lee J-S, Kim YJ, Bhak J, Yang J-M, et al. Prediction and evaluation of protein-protein interaction in keratinocyte differentiation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008;377(2):662–7. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2008.10.051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Rubin AJ, Parker KR, Satpathy AT, Qi Y, Wu B, Ong AJ, et al. Coupled Single-Cell CRISPR Screening and Epigenomic Profiling Reveals Causal Gene Regulatory Networks. Cell. 2019;176(1–2):361-376.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.11.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Cavazza A, Miccio A, Romano O, Petiti L, Malagoli Tagliazucchi G, Peano C, et al. Dynamic Transcriptional and Epigenetic Regulation of Human Epidermal Keratinocyte Differentiation. Stem Cell Reports. 2016;6(4):618–32. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2016.03.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Visscher MO, Carr AN, Narendran V. Epidermal immunity and function: origin in neonatal skin. Front Mol Biosci. 2022;9(June):1–18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Leśniak W. Dynamics and epigenetics of the epidermal differentiation complex. Epigenomes. 2024;8(1). 10.3390/epigenomes8010009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bikle DD, Xie Z, Tu C-L. Calcium regulation of keratinocyte differentiation. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab. 2012;7(4):461–72. doi: 10.1586/eem.12.34 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lee SE, Lee SH. Skin Barrier and Calcium. Ann Dermatol. 2018;30(3):265–75. doi: 10.5021/ad.2018.30.3.265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Borowiec AS, Delcourt P, Dewailly E, Bidaux G. Optimal Differentiation of In Vitro Keratinocytes Requires Multifactorial External Control. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):1–15. 10.1371/journal.pone.0077507 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Koria P, Brazeau D, Kirkwood K, Hayden P, Klausner M, Andreadis ST. Gene expression profile of tissue engineered skin subjected to acute barrier disruption. J Invest Dermatol. 2003;121(2):368–82. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1747.2003.12364.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Nguyen BC, Lefort K, Mandinova A, Antonini D, Devgan V, Gatta GD, et al. Cross-regulation between Notch and p63 in keratinocyte commitment to differentiation. Genes Dev. 2006;20(8):1028–42. 10.1101/gad.1406006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sen T, Chang X, Sidransky D, Chatterjee A. Regulation of ΔNp63α by NFκΒ. Cell Cycle. 2010;9(24):4841–7. doi: 10.4161/cc.9.24.14093 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wanke I, Steffen H, Christ C, Krismer B, Götz F, Peschel A, et al. Skin commensals amplify the innate immune response to pathogens by activation of distinct signaling pathways. J Invest Dermatol. 2011;131(2):382–90. doi: 10.1038/jid.2010.328 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Schiffman M, Doorbar J, Wentzensen N, de Sanjosé S, Fakhry C, Monk BJ, et al. Carcinogenic human papillomavirus infection. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016;2:16086. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2016.86 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Yugawa T, Handa K, Narisawa-Saito M, Ohno S, Fujita M, Kiyono T. Regulation of Notch1 gene expression by p53 in epithelial cells. Mol Cell Biol. 2007;27(10):3732–42. doi: 10.1128/MCB.02119-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kim J-R, Kim J, Kwon Y-K, Lee H-Y, Heslop-Harrison P, Cho K-H. Reduction of complex signaling networks to a representative kernel. Sci Signal. 2011;4(175):ra35. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2001390 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jadali A, Ghazizadeh S. Protein kinase D is implicated in the reversible commitment to differentiation in primary cultures of mouse keratinocytes. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(30):23387–97. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.105619 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Botchkarev VA. The Molecular Revolution in Cutaneous Biology: Chromosomal Territories, Higher-Order Chromatin Remodeling, and the Control of Gene Expression in Keratinocytes. Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 2016;137(5):e93–9. 10.1016/j.jid.2016.04.040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Yi M, Tan Y, Wang L, Cai J, Li X, Zeng Z, et al. TP63 links chromatin remodeling and enhancer reprogramming to epidermal differentiation and squamous cell carcinoma development. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2020;77(21):4325–46. doi: 10.1007/s00018-020-03539-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Smirnov A, Lena AM, Cappello A, Panatta E, Anemona L, Bischetti S, et al. ZNF185 is a p63 target gene critical for epidermal differentiation and squamous cell carcinoma development. Oncogene. 2019;38(10):1625–38. doi: 10.1038/s41388-018-0509-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Lena AM, Shalom-Feuerstein R, Rivetti di Val Cervo P, Aberdam D, Knight RA, Melino G, et al. miR-203 represses “stemness” by repressing DeltaNp63. Cell Death Differ. 2008;15(7):1187–95. doi: 10.1038/cdd.2008.69 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Dazard JE, Piette J, Basset-Seguin N, Blanchard JM, Gandarillas A. Switch from p53 to MDM2 as differentiating human keratinocytes lose their proliferative potential and increase in cellular size. Oncogene. 2000;19(33):3693–705. 10.1038/sj.onc.1203695 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ogawa E, Okuyama R, Egawa T, Nagoshi H, Obinata M, Tagami H, et al. p63/p51-induced onset of keratinocyte differentiation via the c-Jun N-terminal kinase pathway is counteracted by keratinocyte growth factor. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(49):34241–9. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M804101200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.MacPartlin M, Zeng S, Lee H, Stauffer D, Jin Y, Thayer M, et al. p300 regulates p63 transcriptional activity. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(34):30604–10. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M503352200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Katoh I, Maehata Y, Moriishi K, Hata RI, Kurata SI. C-terminal α Domain of p63 Binds to p300 to Coactivate β-Catenin. Neoplasia. 2019;21(5):494–503. doi: 10.1016/j.neo.2019.03.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Wang H, Moreau F, Hirota CL, MacNaughton WK. Proteinase‐activated receptors induce interleukin‐8 expression by intestinal epithelial cells through ERK/RSK90 activation and histone acetylation. FASEB Journal. 2010;24(6):1971–80. 10.1096/fj.09-137646 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kim BE, Howell MD, Guttman-Yassky E, Gilleaudeau PM, Cardinale IR, Boguniewicz M, et al. TNF-α downregulates filaggrin and loricrin through c-Jun N-terminal kinase: role for TNF-α antagonists to improve skin barrier. J Invest Dermatol. 2011;131(6):1272–9. doi: 10.1038/jid.2011.24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.McKenna DJ, McDade SS, Patel D, McCance DJ. MicroRNA 203 expression in keratinocytes is dependent on regulation of p53 levels by E6. J Virol. 2010;84(20):10644–52. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00703-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Howell MD, Fairchild HR, Kim BE, Bin L, Boguniewicz M, Redzic JS, et al. Th2 cytokines act on S100/A11 to downregulate keratinocyte differentiation. J Invest Dermatol. 2008;128(9):2248–58. doi: 10.1038/jid.2008.74 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Kim L, Leung B, Boguniewicz M, Howell M. Loricrin and involucrin expression is down-regulated by Th2 cytokines through STAT-6. Clinical Immunology. 2008;126(3):332–7. 10.1016/j.clim.2007.11.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Domínguez-Hüttinger E, Christodoulides P, Miyauchi K, Irvine AD, Okada-Hatakeyama M, Kubo M, et al. Mathematical modeling of atopic dermatitis reveals “double-switch” mechanisms underlying 4 common disease phenotypes. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139(6):1861–72.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2016.10.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Cursons J, Gao J, Hurley DG, Print CG, Dunbar PR, Jacobs MD, et al. Regulation of ERK-MAPK signaling in human epidermis. BMC Syst Biol. 2015;9:41. doi: 10.1186/s12918-015-0187-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Sütterlin T, Huber S, Dickhaus H, Grabe N. Modeling multi-cellular behavior in epidermal tissue homeostasis via finite state machines in multi-agent systems. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(16):2057–63. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp361 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Mason A, Mason J, Cork M, Dooley G. Topical treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013(3):1–798. 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.06.027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Frazier W, Bhardwaj N. Atopic Dermatitis: Diagnosis and Treatment. American Family Physician. 2020;101:590–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Simpson EL, Bieber T, Guttman-Yassky E, Beck LA, Blauvelt A, Cork MJ, et al. Two Phase 3 Trials of Dupilumab versus Placebo in Atopic Dermatitis. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(24):2335–48. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Serezani APM, Bozdogan G, Sehra S, Walsh D, Krishnamurthy P, Sierra Potchanant EA, et al. IL-4 impairs wound healing potential in the skin by repressing fibronectin expression. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139(1):142–51.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2016.07.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Howell MD, Kim BE, Gao P, Grant AV, Boguniewicz M, Debenedetto A, et al. Cytokine modulation of atopic dermatitis filaggrin skin expression. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;120(1):150–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2007.04.031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Comput Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013162.r002

Decision Letter 0

Stacey Finley

PCOMPBIOL-D-24-01530

History-dependent switch-like differentiation of keratinocytes in response to skin barrier damage

PLOS Computational Biology

Dear Dr. Domínguez Hüttinger,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Computational Biology. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Computational Biology's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Mar 16 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at ploscompbiol@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcompbiol/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ricardo Martinez-Garcia

Academic Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Stacey Finley

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Additional Editor Comments :

The reviewers raise several points related to details about the model. These issues should be justified and/or clarified to strengthen the paper.

Journal Requirements:

1) Please ensure that the CRediT author contributions listed for every co-author are completed accurately and in full.

At this stage, the following Authors/Authors require contributions: José Luis Caldú-Primo. Please ensure that the full contributions of each author are acknowledged in the "Add/Edit/Remove Authors" section of our submission form.

The list of CRediT author contributions may be found here: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/authorship#loc-author-contributions

2) We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex. If you are providing a .tex file, please upload it under the item type u2018LaTeX Source Fileu2019 and leave your .pdf version as the item type u2018Manuscriptu2019.

3) We noticed that you used the phrase 'not shown' in the manuscript. We do not allow these references, as the PLOS data access policy requires that all data be either published with the manuscript or made available in a publicly accessible database. Please amend the supplementary material to include the referenced data or remove the references.

4) Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines: 

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/figures

5) We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list.

6) Please ensure that the funders and grant numbers match between the Financial Disclosure field and the Funding Information tab in your submission form. Note that the funders must be provided in the same order in both places as well. Currently, the order of the funders is different in both places.

Please indicate by return email the full and correct funding information for your study and confirm the order in which funding contributions should appear. Please be sure to indicate whether the funders played any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, the authors have put together a regulatory network for keratinocyte differentiation and performed Boolean modelling on this network to check if it matches experimental patterns. Then, they performed model reduction to get a minimal motif and performed bifurcation analyses to simulate conditions such as skin barrier damage and infection through Ca and NFkB, respectively. The efforts of the authors in putting together a network that captures keratinocyte differentiation mechanism should be appreciated. However, this study has many major concerns still:

1. It is unclear how many curated publications were used to construct the network: mentioned to be 96 in Line 28 of the abstract, but 85 in Line 120 of the main text, and 85 in Supplementary section S1.

2. How the inputs and outputs are connected in Figure 1B is not clear, and it would be great if these edges could be added. Additionally, it would be helpful if this network could be provided in a Supplementary table, maybe as an edge list format: source-node, target-node, effect, references.

3. What is the reason for the authors to include the boolean simulations in the supplementary section?

4. The presence of cyclic attractors is a bit concerning regarding the interpretation, more so in the High Ca condition. Does this mean that the cell switches back and forth between differentiated and undifferentiated states? Generally, asynchronous boolean tends to have a loss of such cyclic attractors; the authors can perform these simulations and verify if the results of fixed points remain consistent.

5. I also find the model reduction to be unsatisfactory. For the interaction from Np63 to Stat3, apart from the direct edge and indirect edges via miR-203, the effective regulation through other indirect edges seems to be mostly -ve. Can the authors find the effective regulation between Stat3 and Np63 over the indirect paths and justify the regulations they have considered in the current model? In fact, in Section S4, the model reduction gives a higher number of negative interactions from Np63 to Stat3. The authors comment, "For the incoherent regulation (2), we decided to keep only the positive effect of Np63 on Stat3 (Np63 induces Stat3) because adding the negative effect in a mathematical model did not alter the main features of our interest, including observation of the bistable behaviour and the fit to data." This justification seems very unsatisfactory.

6. The validation provided in Figure 2C is also not satisfactory. The peak just after Ca challenge withdrawal seems like an artefact of the model and not a biological trend. However, this cannot be said for sure, given the lack of temporal resolution of data. Regardless, the fit to the rest of the data points is visually bad, and this can be objectively measured by any goodness of fit metric.

7. The authors should explain their choice of hills functions specifically for the autoinduction of Np63 while using linear terms for the rest of the regulations. Additionally, there seems to be a missing v_{Ca} term for Equation 1a.

8. The term (a_{TDM} Np63(t) e^{-\beta t}) does not seem to be the right fit for the process and, consequently, the memory effects described here. The terms seem to be reducing the influence of Np63 and Stat3 on TDM expression over time rather than the methylation of their promoters by Np63. This could also explain why the TDM curve seems to flatten out.

9. The authors mention that terminal differentiation is impaired upon increased pathogen load in Line 81. However, their model predicts a decreased threshold for differentiation on increased NFkB, a proxy for pathogen load, and this would imply ease of differentiation. The authors then contradict themselves by mentioning that keratinocyte differentiation is more sensitive in Line 268.

10. There were a few places where the references were not linked properly (Line 146, 157).

11. The GitHub link provided is accessible and has a README, but a better organization of the codes could be done along with steps on running the codes.

Reviewer #2: In this study, the authors develop a mechanistic model of keratinocyte differentiation under skin barrier damage and infection by constructing a regulatory network through the systematic curation of experimental study results. Furthermore, they identify a minimal regulatory network, termed the keratinocyte differentiation motif, using the kernel reduction method, and propose a dynamical system of equations to analyze the kinetics of this motif. The model’s predictions are subsequently validated using experimental data from in vitro keratinocyte differentiation assays. Their study reveals interesting results such as immune response from infections lowers the threshold Ca levels required for keratinocyte differentiation, etc. The modeling framework and the results presented in this manuscript are convincing. Therefore, I am in favor of the publication of this manuscript in PLOS Computational Biology. Below I am providing a series of comments throughout the manuscript, which I think will improve the manuscript.

Page 3, Line 77-79: This is a complex sentence conveying information about multiple processes and their causes. It is better to break it into simpler sentences to improve readability.

Page3, Line 81: Provide a brief explanation of skin barrier homeostasis here for readers who may not be familiar with this concept.

Page 3, Line 85: Would it be better to say "impact" rather than "contribute to", given that both factors negatively affect skin barrier homeostasis?

Page 3, Line 88-90: While this is partially true, there are experimental studies with in vivo animal models and in vitro epidermal or full-thickness skin models (Meesters et al., Keratinocyte signaling in atopic dermatitis: Investigations in organotypic skin models toward clinical application. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 151(5), 1231 - 1235.)

Page 4, Line 118: The term "microenvironments" used here is not clearly defined. Does it refer to components such as the extracellular matrix, immune cells, signaling molecules, pathogens, or other factors?

Page 4, Figure 1(B): What is PKC? Is it Protein Kinase C? Need an explanation of this abbreviation.

Page 5, Line 141-143: It is nice to have a detailed description of various components of the regulatory network in the Supplementary material. However, it will be better to provide a brief description of the processes and components of the network here. It will help the readers to get an insight into this network and help the flow of the manuscript, without the need to go back and forth between the main text and SM.

Page 5, Line 146: Correct the cross-referencing here. There are a few others in the main text and in the SM, please check.

Page 5, Line 146-147: Why do you construct a Boolean model, rather than an agent-based model or ODE model? With biologically realistic parametrization, these models provide a realistic quantitative estimation for the dynamical variables. Including a brief explanation of the choice of Boolean model would be helpful.

Page 6, Line 171-173: How was the decision made regarding which node to remove in the kernel reduction algorithm? Was this choice based on the nature of the available data?

Page 6, Line 184: Is the steady-state line derived from experimental measurements, or does it represent the steady state from the model simulation?

Page 6, Figure 2(B): The y-axis of Figure 2(B) is a bit confusing. What does mean of normalized dynamics mean here?

Page 6, Figure 2(C): It seems to me that in Figure 2(C), the experimental data shows some sort of decay, whereas the model predicts some plateauing. It would be good to provide some statistical tests to make a quantitative assessment of how well the model’s predictions match the actual data.

Page 6, Figure 2(C): Similar to the previous comment, would adding more nodes (not reducing the network to just two nodes, but having three or more) improve the model’s ability to capture the experimental result.

Page 7, Equation (1a): Shouldn't the first term depend on the concentration of calcium as well?

Page 7, Line 202: What does maximal velocity signify here? Is it just the rate?

Page 7, Line 210-211: Provide a brief explanation of how the parameter estimates are obtained using this method.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript presents a mechanistic model of keratinocyte differentiation in response to skin barrier damage and infection.

This research provides insights into the mechanisms of skin barrier homeostasis maintenance under fluctuating environmental conditions.

The manuscript appears to be technically sound, presenting a well-structured approach to modeling keratinocyte differentiation in response to skin barrier damage and infection.

However, the manuscript could be improved if the authors add more information regarding several issues:

1.- the step-wise approach from Boolean to ODE modeling used in this manuscript has several potential weak points:

1.1- oversimplification in Boolean model, and potential loss of quantitative information: the Boolean model reduces complex interactions to binary on/off states, potentially oversimplifying the system's behavior. Similarly, limited temporal resolution: Boolean models typically use synchronous updates, which may not accurately capture the different timescales of biological processes

1.2- challenges in model reduction (potential loss of important interactions)

2.- potential limitations of the ODE model and parameter estimation uncertainty: the ODE model requires fitting to experimental data, which can be challenging given the limited availability of quantitative, time-resolved measurements.

3.- generalizability issues: the models' applicability to different experimental conditions or in vivo situations may be limited, as they are primarily based on and validated against specific in vitro experiments

It would be helpful if the authors add more details about the considerations taken to avoid the above issues.

Additionally, there are some issues with the writing quality:

- in the main text, and in suppl material, there are a number of "Error! Reference source not found" instances that should be corrected.

- there are instances of subject-verb agreement issues and awkward phrasing, such as "the outer skin called skin barrier".

- formatting inconsistencies: references to figures and sections are not consistently formatted throughout the text.

**********

Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data and code should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Figure resubmission:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

PLoS Comput Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013162.r004

Decision Letter 1

Stacey Finley

Dear Domínguez Hüttinger,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'History-dependent switch-like differentiation of keratinocytes in response to skin barrier damage' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Computational Biology. 

Best regards,

Ricardo Martinez-Garcia

Academic Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Stacey Finley

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

***********************************************************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed my comments.

Reviewer #2: I appreciate the authors' efforts in addressing my comments. I am satisfied with the revisions and support the acceptance of the manuscript.

Reviewer #3: I find the revised version satisfactory.

**********

Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data and code should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: None

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

PLoS Comput Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013162.r005

Acceptance letter

Stacey Finley

PCOMPBIOL-D-24-01530R1

History-dependent switch-like differentiation of keratinocytes in response to skin barrier damage

Dear Dr Domínguez-Hüttinger,

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology. Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting PLOS Computational Biology and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work!

With kind regards,

Anita Estes

PLOS Computational Biology | Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom ploscompbiol@plos.org | Phone +44 (0) 1223-442824 | ploscompbiol.org | @PLOSCompBiol

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Individual regulatory interactions underlying the regulatory network for keratinocyte differentiation in response to the changes in the extracellular calcium level modulated by infection assembled from 101 references.

    (XLSX)

    pcbi.1013162.s001.xlsx (30.6KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. Expression data of epidermal differentiation markers corresponding to levels of mRNAs (measured by qPCR and by microarray) or proteins (measured by Western Blot) assembled from 14 references.

    (XLSX)

    pcbi.1013162.s002.xlsx (24.1KB, xlsx)
    S1 Text. The Supplementary Text contains Supplementary Sections A-F, Supplementary Figures A-F and Supplementary References.

    (PDF)

    pcbi.1013162.s003.pdf (2.2MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    pcbi.1013162.s005.pdf (364.7KB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    The code and data are stored in our public GitHub repository: https://github.com/ElisaDominguezHuettinger/Keratinocyte_Differentiation.


    Articles from PLOS Computational Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES