The following is an interview with Dr. Michopoulou:

1. Can you tell us a bit about your background and what your research focuses on?

First of all, I would like to thank you for this interview. I am very honored by the journal’s interest and opportunity to present myself and my research interests. I am a biologist with a PhD in molecular and cellular biology from Claude Bernard University of Lyon (Lyon 1), where I conducted my research under the supervision of Dr. Patricia Rousselle at Laboratoire de Biologie Tissulaire et Ingénierie Thérapeutique in Lyon, an expert in extracellular matrix biology. My academic and research journey spans over a decade and has centered on skin biology, wound healing, and regenerative medicine, with a focus on cell–matrix interactions and tissue engineering. During my PhD, I investigated the role of the proteoglycan transmembrane receptor syndecan-1 in keratinocyte migration and how it regulates MMP-9 expression during skin repair. We uncovered a novel mechanism involving syndecan-1 and CD44 in response to laminin 332, which provided key insights into matrix remodeling during re-epithelialization. Building on that foundation, I continued my research in postdoctoral positions at the Lab of Biochemistry of the Medical School of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTh), including a project funded by BIOHELLENIKA SA, under the supervision of Dr. George Koliakos, where I led efforts to develop anti-psoriatic treatments and 3D bioengineered skin substitutes. My postdoctoral studies were interdisciplinary, involving work on the design and optimization of biopolymer-based scaffolds, drug delivery systems, and cell therapies, often in collaboration with chemists, more specifically, the lab of Dr. Dimitrios Bikiaris (AUTh), clinicians, and biomedical engineers.

Overall, my work bridges basic scientific and applied biomedical research, aiming to develop therapeutic strategies for skin regeneration and disease treatment.

2. What made you decide to publish a bioengineering article? Why did you choose MDPI’s Bioengineering?

I chose to publish in Bioengineering (MDPI) because the journal’s scope aligns directly with the interdisciplinary nature of my work, combining molecular and cellular biology, stem cell therapies, and skin regeneration. The open-access model also ensures broad visibility, which is especially important for rare diseases like Epidermolysis Bullosa, the focus of our article. Additionally, I had the privilege of serving as a Guest Editor for the Bioengineering Special Issue titled “Recent Advances in Skin Repair and Regeneration”, which I co-edited with Dr. Patricia Rousselle. This role gave me deeper insight into the journal’s editorial standards, peer review process, and scientific community. It also allowed me to help curate and highlight innovative research in the field, including my own contribution as a corresponding author of the article on stem cell-based approaches for treating Epidermolysis Bullosa. Therefore, I thought it was a meaningful opportunity to contribute both as an author and as part of the editorial team advancing the field.

3. What do you hope that readers will get from your paper?

With this review paper, our primary goal was to offer readers a comprehensive yet accessible overview of current and emerging stem cell therapies for Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB)—a group of rare, severe, and often life-limiting skin disorders for which there are still no approved curative treatments. We wanted to consolidate and clarify the complex landscape of therapeutic strategies, focusing on hematopoietic and mesenchymal stem cells, genetically corrected epidermal stem cells, and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). These strategies are evolving rapidly, and many clinicians or researchers outside the EB field may not be aware of their nuances, clinical trial progress, or limitations. We also emphasized the translational challenges, such as delivery methods, immune compatibility, and long-term graft viability, to give readers a realistic view of what stem cell therapies can and cannot yet achieve. Importantly, we highlighted how systemic forms of EB present unique difficulties that go beyond skin regeneration and require broader biological solutions. Finally, we hope this review will serve as a stimulus for collaboration and innovation, particularly for those working in adjacent fields like biomaterials or gene editing, to help close the gap between experimental treatments and durable, safe clinical applications.

4. Why do you think this article has been highly cited?

I’m really glad that our review has attracted attention—it tells me that it filled a genuine need in the field. When we wrote it, our goal was to provide a clear and comprehensive synthesis of the various stem cell-based therapies being developed for Epidermolysis Bullosa, especially since the field was rapidly evolving but scattered across different disciplines.

I think it’s been cited frequently because it offered a structured overview that researchers could easily use to orient their own work, trying to cover everything from hematopoietic and mesenchymal stem cells to gene-corrected epidermal cells and iPSCs. We thought it would be very important to include a detailed analysis of clinical trial data, which many later reviews and experimental studies may have referred back to. What I’ve found particularly rewarding is seeing that several citations come from papers proposing next-generation approaches—like biomaterials, gene editing, or extracellular vesicles—where our review helped frame the background or justify new directions. That kind of scientific dialogue and continuity is exactly what we hoped to contribute to.

5. Are there follow-up studies planned based on this paper’s findings?

Yes, I definitely hope so. When we wrote that review, I was working as a postdoctoral researcher at BIOHELLENIKA SA, a stem cell banking and biotechnology company in Thessaloniki, which is also my hometown. The company focuses on isolating and preserving stem cells from newborns and adults, and thus, it was a very productive environment for thinking about how these biological resources could be applied therapeutically, including for rare diseases like Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB). I believe there is good perspective for a future collaboration, especially around stem cell-based treatments for EB, which remains an area of unmet clinical need. The review itself identified several open questions—from how mesenchymal stem cells exert their therapeutic effects to how we can improve delivery strategies using biomaterials and gene correction. Since then, I’ve been developing ideas for follow-up research involving 3D skin equivalents, engineered scaffolds, and potentially patient-derived iPSCs. These platforms could be used to test new therapies or model disease progression in a controlled setting. I'm also very interested in integrating material science and cell biology to make these treatments more effective and targeted. So yes, let’s say the review wasn’t a final word—it was a starting point. And I hope it continues to inspire both collaborative research and translational applications.

6. How did early career researchers or students contribute to this work?

I believe that involving students and early career researchers in the conception and synthesis of projects is incredibly important—not just for the project itself, but for their own development as independent thinkers and scientists. In the case of this review, I worked closely with a junior collaborator who was just beginning to explore the field of regenerative medicine and stem cell biology. Writing a review—especially one that covers both molecular mechanisms and clinical applications—is a demanding task for someone early in their career. It requires critical reading, synthesis of diverse sources, and clear scientific writing. But, under the right supervision, it’s also one of the best opportunities to help them build essential research skills—how to assess the literature, identify knowledge gaps, and construct a narrative that moves science forward. In this project, my role was both scientific and mentorship-focused, guiding the process of outlining, researching, and refining the manuscript. I’m proud of the collaborative spirit of the paper and the fact that it became a learning experience as much as a scholarly one. Helping young scientists find their voice is one of the most rewarding parts of this kind of work.