| Literature DB >> 26269145 |
Ana Cristina Justino Jácomo1, Karina de Andrade Velozo1, Raquel Gabilan Lotti1, Lia Mara Grosso Neves1, Fernanda Oliveira de Gaspari de Gaspi1, Marcelo A Marreto Esquisatto1, Maria Esméria Corezola do Amaral1, Fernanda A Sampaio Mendonça1, Gláucia Maria Tech dos Santos2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study, we investigated the effects of an extract of the leaves of Porophyllum ruderale and laser irradiation on the healing of burns.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26269145 PMCID: PMC4534103 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-015-0805-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Fig. 1Cross-sections of second-degree burns in rats in different treatment groups. C: untreated control; L: treated with 670-nm InGaP laser; P: treated with the Porophyllum ruderale extract PL: treated with the P. ruderale extract and 670-nm InGaP laser. Samples were collected from each group 7, 14 and 21 days after injury. The sections were stained with Masson’s trichrome. (*) Wound area; (→) collagen fibers. Bar = 100 μm
Cellular parameters evaluated in the wound healing process of second-degree burns in rats in different treatment groups
| Cellular parameters/Experimental groups | C | L | P | PL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of fibroblasts (n/104 μm2) | Experimental periods | ||||
| 7d | 15.3 ± 3.1 | 22.3 ± 2.1* | 16.1 ± 3.2 | 21.9 ± 3.4* p=0.037 | |
| 14d | 24.2 ± 4.4 | 31.6 ± 3.1* | 23,3 ± 2.3 | 30.7 ± 3.2* p=0.043 | |
| 21d | 28.5 ± 4.1 | 37.2 ± 3.3* | 29.1 ± 4.2 | 38.2 ± 3.4* p=0.040 | |
| Number of granulocytes (n/104 μm2) | 7d | 26.1 ± 2.4 *p=0.043 | 21.5 ± 2.4 | 21.3 ± 2.3 | 22.1 ± 2.3 |
| 14d | 18.7 ± 2.2 | 19.5 ± 3.8 | 17.7 ± 3.1 | 18.5 ± 3 | |
| 21d | 9.6 ± 3.1 | 7.2 ± 2.5 | 8.1 ± 2.2 | 8.2 ± 2.9 |
Samples were collected from each group 7, 14 and 21 days after injury. Values are the mean and standard deviation of each group and were compared by ANOVA with Tukey’s post-test
C untreated control, L treated with 670-nm InGaP laser, P treated with the Porophyllum ruderale extract, PL treated with the P. ruderale extract and 670-nm InGaP laser
Asterisk (*) indicates significant differences (p < 0.05)
Collagen content (% of area) evaluated in the wound healing process of burns second degree in rats in different treatment groups
| Experimental groups/periods | C | L | P | PL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7d | 20.5 ± 8.2 | 28.6 ± 7.2 | 22.6 ± 4.7 | 29.4 ± 5.6 |
| 14d | 41.3 ± 8.1 | 39.6 ± 8.2 | 37.6 ± 5.7 | 56.9 ± 6.8* p=0.048 |
| 21d | 53.4 ± 9.5 | 88.6 ± 10.4* p =0.046 | 48.8 ± 7.8 | 71.5 ± 7.2* |
Samples were collected from each group 7, 14 and 21 days after injury. Values are the mean and standard deviation of each group and were compared by ANOVA with Tukey’s post-test
C untreated control, L treated with 670-nm InGaP laser, P treated with the P. ruderale extract, PL treated with the P. ruderale extract and 670-nm InGaP laser
Asterisk (*) indicates significant differences (p < 0.05)
Number of new vessels (n/104 μm2) evaluated in the wound healing process of burns second degree in rats in different treatment groups
| Experimental groups/periods | C | L | P | PL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7d | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.8 ± 0.3* p=0.044 | 1.0 ± 0.4 | 1.2 ± 0.2 |
| 14d | 1.7 ± 0.4 | 2.7 ± 0.3* p=0.042 | 1.4 ± 0.7 | 2.2 ± 0.1 |
| 21d | 2.2 ± 0.4 | 3.1 ± 0.4* p=0.045 | 2.2 ± 0.3 | 2.0 ± 0.4 |
Samples were collected from each group 7, 14 and 21 days after injury. Values are the mean and standard deviation of each group and were compared by ANOVA with Tukey’s post-test
C untreated control, L treated with 670-nm InGaP laser, P treated with the P. ruderale extract, PL treated with the P. ruderale extract and 670-nm InGaP laser
Asterisk (*) indicates significant differences (p < 0.05)
Fig. 2Immunoblot analysis of the expression of TGF-β1 and VEGF after 7, 14 and 21 days of the experiment in second-degree burns in rats in different treatment groups. C: untreated control; L: treated with 670-nm InGaP laser; P: treated with the Porophyllum ruderale extract PL: treated with the P. ruderale extract and 670-nm InGaP laser. Typical blots are shown above average densitometry results. Values are the mean and standard deviation of each group and were compared by ANOVA with Tukey’s post-test (* p < 0.05)