| Literature DB >> 29531018 |
Zhen-Han Deng1,2, Jian-Jian Yin3, Wei Luo1, Ronak Naveenchandra Kotian4, Shan-Shan Gao5, Zi-Qing Yi3, Wen-Feng Xiao1, Wen-Ping Li6, Yu-Sheng Li7.
Abstract
Chronic nonhealing wounds pose a significant challenge to healthcare system because of its tremendous utilization of resources and time to heal. It has a well-deserved reputation for reducing the quality of life for those affected and represent a substantial economic burden to the healthcare system overall. Earthworms are used as a traditional Chinese medicine, and have been applied pharmacologically and clinically since a long time in China. However, there is paucity in data regarding its wound healing effects. Therefore, we investigated the effect of earthworm extract (EE) on skin wound healing process. The obtained data showed that EE has healing effects on local wound of mice. It decreased the wound healing time and reduced the ill-effects of inflammation as determined by macroscopic, histopathologic, hematologic, and immunohistochemistry parameters. The potential mechanism could be accelerated hydroxyproline and transforming growth factor-β secretion-thus increasing the synthesis of collagen, promoting blood capillary, and fibroblast proliferation. It could accelerate the removal of necrotic tissue and foreign bodies by speeding up the generation of interleukin-6, white blood cells, and platelets. It thus enhances immunity, reduces the risk of infection, and promotes wound healing. All in all, the obtained data demonstrated that EE improves quality of healing and could be used as a propitious wound healing agent.Entities:
Keywords: Earthworm extract; Hyp; IL-6; TGF-β; Wound healing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29531018 PMCID: PMC5968189 DOI: 10.1042/BSR20171366
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosci Rep ISSN: 0144-8463 Impact factor: 3.840
Figure 1Macroscopic evaluation of wound at the 3rd (upper row) and the 15th day (lower row) in each group
(A) The control group, (B) the JWH group, and (C) the EE group.
WHR and WHT of mice in each group (mean ± SD)
| Groups | Number | WHR (%) | WHR (d) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3rd day | 7th day | 11th day | 15th day | |||
| EE | 4 | 13.45 ± 3.02 | 69.15 ± 6.25†§ | 88.34 ± 2.86†‡ | 100† | 14.18 ± 0.31†‡ |
| JWH | 4 | 12.51 ± 3.34 | 61.76 ± 2.37† | 84.99 ± 4.77† | 100† | 15.03 ± 0.79† |
| Control | 4 | 10.67 ± 2.36 | 52.58 ± 4.16 | 72.65 ± 3.17 | 97.86 ± 1.78 | 17.54 ± 0.52 |
Abbreviations: WHR, wound healing rate; WHT, wound healing time. †P<0.01 compared with the control group; ‡P<0.05 compared with the JWH group; §P<0.01 compared with the JWH group.
Figure 2Histological characteristics of wound healing at each time point in each group (H&E staining, ×100)
(A1), (B1), and (C1): the third day after modeling; (A2), (B2), and (C2): the 7th day after modeling; (A3), (B3), and (C3): the 11th day after modeling; (A4), (B4), and (C4): the 15th day after modeling; (A1–A4): the control group; (B1–B4): the JWH group; (C1–C4): the EE group.
PLT, WBC, and GRAN numbers of mice in each group (109/l, mean ± SD)
| Group | 3rd day | 7th day | 11th day | 15th day | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLT | EE | 462 ± 11.23 | 504 ± 19.33† | 442 ± 4.66 | 363 ± 21.01 |
| JWH | 456 ± 5.66 | 471 ± 7.76 | 431 ± 5.83* | 371 ± 30.08 | |
| Control | 413 ± 2.53 | 432 ± 6.35 | 415 ± 17.76 | 372 ± 25.33 | |
| WBC | EE | 13.52 ± 0.65†§ | 13.07 ± 0.18 | 11.22 ± 0.32 | 8.74 ± 0.14 |
| JWH | 11.73 ± 0.89 | 12.90 ± 0.27 | 10.84 ± 0.44 | 8.49 ± 0.52 | |
| Control | 9.58 ± 0.23 | 10.40 ± 0.59 | 11.03 ± 0.36 | 8.24 ± 0.33 | |
| GRAN | EE | 213 ± 10.22 | 325 ± 20.38†§ | 235 ± 12.45† | 9 ± 2.24 |
| JWH | 196 ± 9.67 | 267 ± 15.76 | 179 ± 8.85 | 8 ± 1.67 | |
| Control | 48 ± 3.23 | 62 ± 9.31 | 54 ± 5.33 | 8 ± 1.13 |
Abbreviations: GRAN, neutrophilic granulocyte; PLT, platelet; WBC, white blood cell. *P<0.05 compared with the control group; <0.01 compared with the control group; <0.05 compared with the JWH group; <0.01 compared with the JWH group.
Expression of Ki-67 protein in dermis of the wound in each group
| Groups | Days | Numbers | Expression of Ki-67 protein | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| − | + | ++ | +++ | |||
| EE | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| 7 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | |
| 11 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| 15 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | |
| JWH | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | |
| 11 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| 15 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |
| Control | 3 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| 11 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | |
| 15 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
Figure 3Ki67 protein expression at different grades in each group (×400)
(A1): negative expression (−); (A2), (B2), and (C2): weak positive expression (+); (A3), (B3), and (C3): middle positive expression (++); (A4), (B4), and (C4): strong positive expression (+++); (A1–A4): the control group; (B2–B4): the JWH group; (C2–C4): the EE group.
The content of Hyp (μg/ml), IL-6 (pg/ml), and TGF-β (pg/ml) in serum in each group (mean ± SD)
| Group | 3rd day | 7th day | 11th day | 15th day | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hyp | EE | 19.23 ± 1.03 | 22.01 ± 1.36 | 27.24 ± 1.87†‡ | 26.64 ± 2.25†‡ |
| JWH | 18.89 ± 1.27 | 21.76 ± 2.24 | 25.32 ± 2.12† | 24.82 ± 2.18* | |
| Control | 18.35 ± 1.19 | 21.34 ± 1.24 | 21.86 ± 2.49 | 22.67 ± 3.16 | |
| IL-6 | EE | 253.71 ± 30.48†§ | 456.37 ± 26.33†§ | 193.67 ± 15.58† | 62.36 ± 16.36 |
| JWH | 164.33 ± 7.38* | 225.54 ± 18.96† | 201.35 ± 5.33† | 67.83 ± 5.35 | |
| Control | 135.60 ± 14.37 | 161.34 ± 22.56 | 150.34 ± 8.39 | 63.41 ± 3.98 | |
| TGF-β | EE | 215.33 ± 17.88† | 208.02 ± 21.45†‡ | 191.63 ± 14.76†‡ | 138.24 ± 6.35 |
| JWH | 203.11 ± 34.72* | 187.04 ± 19.61† | 166.24 ± 11.72* | 136.23 ± 3.45 | |
| Control | 168.07 ± 9.82 | 150.76 ± 6.39 | 141.13 ± 10.33 | 135.77 ± 4.65 |
Abbreviations: Hyp, hydroxyproline; TGF-β, transforming growth factor-β; *P<0.05 compared with the control group; †P<0.01 compared with the control group; ‡P<0.05 compared with the JWH group; §P<0.01 compared with the JWH group.