14
THOMAS S. ARGYRIS
removed (Argyris, 1966b), also results in an intense inflammatory
response, but the overlying epidermis and the resting hair follicles are
not stimulated to grow. Roney et al. (1953) have shown that resting hair
follicles in rabbits are not stimulated to grow by the application of a
number of irritants that produce an inflammatory response. If the
irritation is sufficient to produce cell damage and death, grossly evidenced
by scaling and crusting of the skin surface, growth of the resting hair
follicles occurs. The injection of histamine at levels that produce erythema
but no obvious tissue necrosis does not result in hair growth stimulation
(Roney et al, 1953).
Finally, Hopkins et al. (1951) have reported that intradermal injection
of bacteria produces an intense inflammatory response, but hair growth
stimulation does not occur so long as no obvious necrosis is seen. If the
irritation is sufficient to produce tissue necrosis, then the resting hair
follicles are induced to grow. Thus the evidence is good that the epidermis
and hair follicles are not stimulated to proliferate by inflammation.
Whether or not inflammation can stimulate the growth of the connective
tissues of the skin has not been clearly decided. T. S. Argyris and B. F.
Argyris (1962b) have shown that subcutaneous transplants of Ehrlich
ascites tumor will elicit an inflammatory response. So long as the tumor
does not invade the overlying skin, the connective tissue in the subcutis
is not stimulated to grow. This could be interpreted to be evidence that
inflammation does not stimulate growth of connective tissue, but this is
clouded by the fact that the panniculus carnosus, which is between the
tumor and the subcutis of the skin, may act as a barrier to the diffusion
of growth-promoting substances from the inflammation (Argyris, 1966a).
Also, it is possible that the inflammation produced by tumor transplants
is not the same as that produced by damage.
We should also point out in passing that in the experiments of Bullough
and Laurence (1960a) and in those of Argyris (1964) where the undersurface of the skin has been scraped, it seems highly probable that nerves
have been severed, although this has not been specifically looked for.
This, suggests that nerve damage and nerve regeneration under the conditions studied probably cannot stimulate the growth of the epidermis or
resting hair follicles. But the evidence is only circumstantial and we must
keep an open mind.
Thus the evidence so far suggests that the growth-promoting effects of
damage do not owe to inflammation, but probably to damage of the skin
tissues themselves. Therefore we may next ask if the damage of any one
tissue of the skin results in the stimulation of all the other tissues, or if
THOMAS S. ARGYRIS
removed (Argyris, 1966b), also results in an intense inflammatory
response, but the overlying epidermis and the resting hair follicles are
not stimulated to grow. Roney et al. (1953) have shown that resting hair
follicles in rabbits are not stimulated to grow by the application of a
number of irritants that produce an inflammatory response. If the
irritation is sufficient to produce cell damage and death, grossly evidenced
by scaling and crusting of the skin surface, growth of the resting hair
follicles occurs. The injection of histamine at levels that produce erythema
but no obvious tissue necrosis does not result in hair growth stimulation
(Roney et al, 1953).
Finally, Hopkins et al. (1951) have reported that intradermal injection
of bacteria produces an intense inflammatory response, but hair growth
stimulation does not occur so long as no obvious necrosis is seen. If the
irritation is sufficient to produce tissue necrosis, then the resting hair
follicles are induced to grow. Thus the evidence is good that the epidermis
and hair follicles are not stimulated to proliferate by inflammation.
Whether or not inflammation can stimulate the growth of the connective
tissues of the skin has not been clearly decided. T. S. Argyris and B. F.
Argyris (1962b) have shown that subcutaneous transplants of Ehrlich
ascites tumor will elicit an inflammatory response. So long as the tumor
does not invade the overlying skin, the connective tissue in the subcutis
is not stimulated to grow. This could be interpreted to be evidence that
inflammation does not stimulate growth of connective tissue, but this is
clouded by the fact that the panniculus carnosus, which is between the
tumor and the subcutis of the skin, may act as a barrier to the diffusion
of growth-promoting substances from the inflammation (Argyris, 1966a).
Also, it is possible that the inflammation produced by tumor transplants
is not the same as that produced by damage.
We should also point out in passing that in the experiments of Bullough
and Laurence (1960a) and in those of Argyris (1964) where the undersurface of the skin has been scraped, it seems highly probable that nerves
have been severed, although this has not been specifically looked for.
This, suggests that nerve damage and nerve regeneration under the conditions studied probably cannot stimulate the growth of the epidermis or
resting hair follicles. But the evidence is only circumstantial and we must
keep an open mind.
Thus the evidence so far suggests that the growth-promoting effects of
damage do not owe to inflammation, but probably to damage of the skin
tissues themselves. Therefore we may next ask if the damage of any one
tissue of the skin results in the stimulation of all the other tissues, or if