| Literature DB >> 28493875 |
Daiane Figueiredo Rosa1, Mariáurea Matias Sarandy1, Rômulo Dias Novaes2, Sérgio Luís Pinto da Matta1, Reggiani Vilela Gonçalves3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28493875 PMCID: PMC5426595 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176240
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Strategy applied to recover pre-clinical studies (high-fat diet).
Fig 2Strategy applied to recover pre-clinical studies (alcohol).
Fig 3Summary of the studies describing the plants species, families, used parts of each specie, toxicity tests and popular indications.
Descriptors used for advanced search in PubMed and Scopus.
Ref: References; Tox: Toxicity test; Acclim: Acclimatization period; N: number of animals per group; AB: Amount of Animals in each cage; Rand: Randomization; wk: week; d: days; M: Male; F: Female;?: not related.
| Exercise Speeds Cutaneous Wound Healing in High-Fat Diet-Induced Obese Mice | Pence, et al., 2012 [ | USA | C57BL/6 mice | F | 6 wk | ? | 1,3,5 days | 1 wk | cages | 5 | 4 | every 2 wk | 10 d | ? | ? | excisional wound 6.0-mm | Daily | |||||||
| Granzyme B degrades extracellular matrix and contributes to delayed wound closure in apolipoprotein E knockout mice | Hiebert, et al., 2013 [ | Canada | C57BL/6 mice | M | 7 wk & 37 wk | ? | ? | ? | cages | ? | 6 | ? | 16 d | ? | ? | excisional wound 1cm | Daily | |||||||
| Insulin resistance impairs cutaneous wound healing in mice | Otranto, et al., 2012 [ | Brazil | C57BL/6 mice | M | 6 wk | 23–25 | ? | ? | ? | 10 | 2 | weekly | 30 wk | Diabetes mellitus | Yes | excisional wound 1 cm2 | 0, 7, 14 days | |||||||
| Overweight induced by high-fat diet delays rat cutaneous wound healing | Nascimento & Costa, 2006 [ | Brazil | Wistar rat | M | ? | 120–150 | weekly | ? | cages | 5 and 15 | 2 | weekly | 21 d | ? | Yes | excisional wound4 cm2 | Weekly | |||||||
| Topical fentanyl stimulates healing of ischemic wounds in diabetic rats | Gupta, et al., 2015 [ | EUA | ZDF Rats and Sprague–Dawley rats | ? | 11 wk | ? | ? | ? | ? | 8 | 4 | ? | 36 d | Diabetes mellitus | ? | excisional wound 8 mm | Every two days | |||||||
| Wound Healing in Mice with High-Fat Diet- or ob Gene-Induced Diabetes-Obesity Syndromes: A Comparative Study | Seitz, et al., 2015 [ | Germany | C57Bl/6 (wild-type) and C57Bl/6 ob/ob | F | 6 wk & 12 wk | 15–50 | ? | ? | cage | 4 | 3 | ? | 190 d | Diabetes mellitus | ? | excisional wound 3-5mm | 1, 3, 5, 7 and 11 days | |||||||
| Zucker diabetic fatty rat: A new model of impaired cutaneous wound repair with type II diabetes mellitus and obesity | Slavkovsky, et al., 2011 [ | Czech Republic | ZDF rats | F & M | 18–20 wk | 218–366 | ? | ? | cage | Males: 9–12; females: 8–10 | 4 | ? | 30 d | Diabetes mellitus | ? | excisional wound 20mm | 0, 2, 3 days | |||||||
| Obesity Impairs Wound Healing in Ovariectomized Female Mice | Holcomb, et al., 2009 [ | USA | C57BL/6 mice | F | 6 wk | ? | twice weekly | ? | cage | 12 | 3 | twice weekly | 23 wk | Ovariecto mized Mice | yes | excisional wound 6mm | Every two days | |||||||
| Both obesity-prone and obesity-resistant rats present delayed cutaneous wound healing | Nascimento & Costa, 2011 [ | Brasil | Wistar rat | M | After wea-ning | 30 & 60 | weekly | ? | ? | 17, 16, 17 | 3 | Daily | 22 wk | Obesity | Yes | excisional wound 1 cm2 | Weekly | |||||||
| Phototherapy improves wound healing in rats subjected to high-fat diet | Leite, et al., 2015 [ | Brazil | Wistar rat | M | ? | 180–200 | ? | ? | polyethylene cages | 3 | 4 | 0 and 45 day | 59 d | ? | Yes | excisional wound 15-mm | 0, 2, 7 and 14 days | |||||||
| Ethanol exacerbates T cell dysfunction after thermal injury | Choudhrya et al., 2000 [ | USA | C57BL/6 mice | M | 8–10 wk | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | 4 | ? | ? | ? | yes | excisional wound 15% of the total body surface area | ? | Sodium pentoba rbital | 20% (v/v) | intraperitoneal (saline) | |||
| Effect of Acute Ethanol Exposure on the DermalInflammatory Response After Burn Injury | Faunce et al., 2003 [ | USA | B6D2F1 mice | M | 8–10 wk | 25–30 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | water | ? | Bacterial infection | ? | burn wound14%-17% of the total body surface area (12 cm2) | ? | ? | 20% (v/v) | intraperitoneal (saline) | |||
| Acute ethanol exposure impairs angiogenesis and the proliferativephase of wound healing | Radek et al., 2005 [ | USA | BALB/c mice | F | 8–9 wk | 17–21 | ? | ? | ? | ? | 4 and 6 | 2 | ? | 21 d | ? | ? | burn wound 15% of the total body surface area | 7 days | Nembutal | 20% (v/v) | intraperitoneal (saline) | |||
| Fibroblast Function and Wound Breaking Strength isImpaired by Acute Ethanol Intoxication | Ranzer et al., 2011 [ | USA | BALB /c mice | F | 6–8 wk | 17 & 21 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | 2 | ? | 35 d | ? | ? | excisional wound 3mm | 5, 7, 10, 14, 21, 28, 35 days | Ketamine—xylazine | 20% (v/v) | intraperitoneal (saline) | |||
| Effects of Acute Ethanol Exposure on the EarlyInflammatory Response After Excisional Injury | Fitzgerald et al., 2007 [ | USA | BALB/c mice | F | 8–9 wk | ? | Yes | ? | ? | ? | 3 and 5 | 2 | ? | 24 hs | ? | ? | excisional wound 3mm | 6, 12, 24 hs | Nembutal | ? | intraperitoneal (saline) | |||
Analysis of reporting bias (ARRIVE) in all included studies.
| Title | Pence, 2012 [ | Hiebert, 2013 [ | Otranto, 2012 [ | Nascimento, 2006 [ | Gupta, 2015 [ | Seitz, 2010 [ | Slavkovsky, 2011 [ | Holcomb, 2009 [ | Nascimento & Costa, 2011 [ | Leite, 2015 [ | Choudhrya, 2000 [ | Faunce, 2003 [ | Radek, 2005 [ | Ranzer, 2011 [ | Fitzgerald, 2007. [ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accurate and concise description of the article content | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 100.0% |
| Background summary, research objectives, methods, main findings, and conclusions | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 93.3% | |
| Sufficient scientific background | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 100.0% |
| Explanation of the experimental approach and rationale | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 93.3% | |
| Clear primary and second objectives | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 100.0% |
| Nature of the ethical review permissions, relevant licenses and national or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 100.0% |
| Number of animals per group | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 73.3% | ||||
| Information on whether the experiment was performed as a blind controlled study | ✓ | ✓ | 13.3% | |||||||||||||
| Treatment Description (Diet or Etanol) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 100.0% |
| Treatment dosage | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 93.3% | |
| Treatment Duration | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 86.6% | ||
| Time of day for treatment administration | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 73.3% | ||||
| Information on animal species | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 100.0% |
| Strain of the animals | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 100.0% |
| Sex of the animals | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 93.3% | |
| Animals' weigth range | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 46.6% | ||||||||
| Age of the animals | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 60.0% | |||
| Description of genetic modification status (Knock-out, transgenic, SPF) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 60.0% | ||||||
| Information related to previous procedures applied to the animals | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 46.6% | ||||||||
| Housing of experimental animals (facility type, cage or housing type, material, number of cage companions) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 53.3% | |||||||
| Husbandry conditions (breeding program, light/dark cycle, temperature, water) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 53.3% | |||||||
| Welfare-related assessments and interventions carried out before, during, or after the experiment | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 40.0% | |||||||||
| Total number of animals used in each experiment and number of animals in each experimental group | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 60.0% | ||||||
| Explanation for the determination of the number of animals and details of sample size calculation | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||
| Full details of how the animals were allocated into experimental groups (including randomization or matching) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 53.3% | |||||||
| Sequence of treatment and assessment of the animals in the different experimental groups | ✓ | 6.6% | ||||||||||||||
| Clear experimental outcomes assessed | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 93.3% | |
| Statistical methods used for each analysis | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 100.0% |
| Unit of analysis specifications for each dataset | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 66.6% | |||||
| Methods used to assess whether the data met the assumptions of the statistical approach | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 26.6% | |||||||||||
| Description of the animals' health status, for each experimental group, before treatment | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 53.3% | |||||||
| Number or animals in each group included in each analysis (absolute numbers) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 60.0% | ||||||
| Animals or data not included in the analysis (and explanation for the exclusion) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 26.6% | |||||||||||
| Information (Mean = Standard Deviation) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 60.0% | ||||||
| Information on the mortality of the experimental animals (Mean = Standard Deviation) | ✓ | 6.6% | ||||||||||||||
| Modifications to the experimental protocols to reduce adverse events | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 26.6% | |||||||||||
| Interpretation of the results, taking into account the study objectives and hypotheses, current theory and relevant studies | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 80.0% | |||
| Comments on the study limitations (sources of bias, limitations of the animal model, imprecision associated with the results) | ✓ | ✓ | 13.3% | |||||||||||||
| Comments on how the findings are likely to translate to other species or systems, including relevance to human biology | ✓ | ✓ | 13.3% | |||||||||||||
| List of funding sources and the role of the funder(s) in the study | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 100.0% |
| Total results | 30 | 26 | 26 | 26 | 24 | 26 | 28 | 23 | 26 | 22 | 18 | 24 | 30 | 27 | 26 | |
✓ Means that the criteria were met according to the ARRIVE guidelines. The percentage was calculated considering the total number of studies that met the criteria included in the bias analysis
Parameters analyzed in the studies demonstrate the effects of high-fat diet and alcohol on the cutaneous repair in murine models.
| Pence et al., 2012 [ | Mice fed with High fat diet (HFD) showed impaired wound healing and larger wound sizes. However, wound size was significantly smaller in exercised obese mice, compared with HFD-sedentary and chow-sedentary groups | ? | HFD, body weight was significantly higher, compared to the control group. | The HFD group exhibited elevated levels of blood glucose, when compared to chow-exercise, and chow-sedentary groups. |
| Hiebert et al., 2013 [ | HFD exhibited reduced wound closure, delayed contraction; and chronic inflammation, compared with the control group. | The HFD-fed mice presented less collagen and decorin, and less closing wounds compared with the controls. Animals treated with the Granzime B and HFD presented increases the fibronectin and vitronectin compared with the Wild-type animals. | ApoE knouchout (AKO) mice fed a HFD presented increased weight when compared to AKO mice fed a different diet. | ? |
| Otranto et al., 2012 [ | The wound area was 27% greater in the high-fat chow group on day 7 and 110% greater 14 days after wounding, when compared with the standard chow (SC) group. | The collagen fibers were less organized and less dense in the HFC group. The hydroxyproline levels were lower in the high-fat chow (HFC) group. | From the 8th week, the HFC group presented higher body weight. | The blood glucose of the HFC group was higher than the standard chow (SC) group |
| Nascimento & Costa, 2006 [ | 21 days after wounding, the wound area in the fat diet group was 32% larger, which indicates less contraction in relation control group | Higher collagen density was observed in the control group, compared to the fat diet group. | In the fat diet group, the body weight gain was significantly greater than in the control group. | Blood concentration of glucose was not different between the groups throughout the experiment. |
| Gupta et al., 2015 [ | Fentanyl treatment resulted in complete reepithelization and dense granulation tissue in the wound scars on day 36 in diabetic rats treated with high fat diet. | There was increased collagen content in fentanyl treated wounds, compared to PBS in diabetic rats treated with high fat diet. | ? | ? |
| Seitz et al., 2015 [ | Mice fed HFD showed increased wound area and incomplete wound epithelialization in the end of the experiment, compared mice which had received a standard chow diet (CD) | ? | The uptake of the HFD caused a significant increase in body weight. | The HFD group exhibited elevated levels of blood glucose. |
| Slavkovsky et al., 2011 [ | Animals fed high-fat diet showed significantly increased scar size: by 40% in males, and 140% in females. | The levels of hydroxyproline, tropoelastin and procollagen were reduced in diabetic groups (HFD). MMP3 and MMP13 (matrix metalloproteinase) and MPO (myeloperoxidase) levels increased in animals fed HFD. | The animals fed HFD showed increased body weight in both sexes.The difference was more pronounced in females, twice the value of the control. | The high-fat diet animals group, presented elevated glucose levels, when compared to control. |
| Holcomb et al., 2009 [ | HDF fed animals and those ovarectomized (OVX) presented 61% of the wound open, when compared to No ovarectomized (NOVX) and HFD fed mice, which presented 34% of the wound open. | ? | OVX mice treated with high-fat diet presented higher final body weight than NOVX mice treated with HFD. | ? |
| Nascimento & Costa 2011 [ | The diet-induced obesity (DIO) group, showed no sign of reepithelialization. The percentage of the reepithelialization wound area was lower in the DIO groups compared with the control group. | In the diet-induced obesity (DIO) and diet-resistant (DR) groups, hydroxyproline levels were lower 7 days after wounding and increased slightly 14 days after wounding. | The diet-induced obesity (DIO) group presented a higher average body weight, than the diet-resistant (DR) group. | The blood glucose level of the diet-resistant (DR) group was lower than the glucose levels of the control and diet-induced obesity (DIO) groups. |
| Leite et al., 2015 [ | The wound healing rate was reduced in animals treated with hyperlipidic diet and laser off. | The hydroxyproline content was reduced in the groups treated with the hyperlipidic diet and laser off. | There was no difference in the body mass of the animals after 45 days on a high-fat diet. | A higher serum glucose level, were observed in hyperlipidic animals. |
| Choudhrya et al., 2000 [ | It was observed decreased proliferation of splenocytes derived from animals subjected to the combination of alcohol and burn injury. | ? | A 50% decrease in IL-2 production was observed by splenocytes derived from burn animals compared with the splenocytes from sham animals | |
| Faunce et al., 2003 [ | The neutrophil content of the skin of mice after burn injury was not significantly difference with of ethanol treatment, when compared to not burns (Sham+Vehicle and Sham+Ethanol) groups. | ? | Myeloperoxidase (MPO) content increased in the groups Burn+Vehicle and Burn+Ethanol when compared to Sham+Vehicle and Sham+Ethanol. The production of TNF-α was lower in the Burn+Ethanol groups compared with Burn+Vehicle groups | ? |
| Radek et al., 2005 [ | Reepithelialization was lower in the groups treated with the Ethanol, when compared to the control groups, but does not inhibit keratinocyte migration across the wound bed. | Hydroxyproline, was significantly reduced at day 7, in wounds from ethanol-treated animals compared with the control. | The level of FGF-2 was lower in wounds from ethanol-treated mice and VEGF levels were significantly higher in wounds from ethanol-treated mice compared with the control. | ? |
| Ranzer et al., 2011 [ | Exposure to ethanol decreased of fibroblast proliferation, and impairment on the regulatory function of fibroblasts when compared to control. | The levels of collagen and hyaluronic acid of the wounds in mice exposed to ethanol were significantly reduced compared to control. | Lysyl Oxidase activity (LOX) in the wounds of the mice treated with ethanol decreased significantly compared to control groups. | ? |
| Fitzgerald et al., 2007 [ | The histological examination of wounds by myeloperoxidase (MPO) reveals a reduction at 12 and 24hs of the neutrophil infiltration. The analysis of the macrophage inflammatory protein-2 (MIP-2) reveal a reduction at 12hs, post injury in the groups treated with the ethanol | ? | TNFα levels were unchanged after injury in both groups ethanol and saline-treated. IL-1β showed variables peak levels, with reduction at 6 and 12 hs and high after 24hs in the groups treated with the ethanol. | |