| Literature DB >> 30050753 |
Anuj Bellare1, Michael W Epperly2, Joel S Greenberger2, Renee Fisher2, Julie Glowacki1.
Abstract
In this study, a methodology was evaluated and improved to quickly measure the tensile strength of murine skin in a biomechanical assay for an incisional wound healing model. The aim was to streamline and enhance the wound model, skin specimen preparation, and tensile test so that large numbers of fresh tissue could be tested reliably and rapidly. Linear incisions of 25-mm length were made in the dorsal skin of mice along the spine and metallic staples were used to close the wound. After 20 days, the mice were sacrificed, and a square-shaped section of skin containing the linear incision was excised. Two metallic punches were fabricated and used to punch 15-mm long strips of skin of 2 mm width whose length was orthogonal to the direction of incision. The tensiometer configuration was modified to expedite tensile measurements on fresh skin, and load-to-failure was measured for each strip of skin from the cephalad to the caudal region. We evaluated sources of error in the animal model and the testing protocol and developed procedures to maximize speed and reproducibility in tensile strength measurements. This report provides guidance for efficient and reproducible tensile strength measurement of large numbers of skin specimens from freshly sacrificed animals. •Tattoo placement to identify the two ends of the healing incisional wound assisted in decreasing error in the position and orientation of tensile strips.•Custom-made punches to prepare skin strips for tensile testing helped conduct tensile tests of fresh tissue rapidly.•Alteration of the manual grips of the tensile tester enabled specimens to be gripped rapidly to significantly accelerate testing for each skin strip.Entities:
Keywords: Biomechanical test; Murine skin; Tensile strength; Tensile testing for murine skin wound; Wound repair
Year: 2018 PMID: 30050753 PMCID: PMC6058076 DOI: 10.1016/j.mex.2018.04.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: MethodsX ISSN: 2215-0161
Fig. 1Custom-built punches used (A) to prepare rectangle of skin centered on the incision and (B) to prepare ten 15-mm long, 2-mm wide strips of skin for tensile testing. (C) A schematic of the orientation of tensile strips using the two punches in succession (shaded region represents the portion of specimens that would be gripped). (D) A representative skin specimen. The ends of the arrows approximate the location of the ends of the incisional wound.
Fig. 2Tensiometer set-up with mouse skin mounted for tensile deformation using spring clamps.
Fig. 3Representative load-displacement curve of a control, intact skin strip and a skin strip from an incisional wound at 20 days after incision.
Fig. 4Schematic showing (A) a skin specimen with misalignment of incision with respect to tensile strips, (B) a skin specimen in which the incision is shorter than total width of 10 strips, and (C) a skin specimen with an incision between two different tattoo marks to indicate cephalad and caudal edges of the wound (shaded regions represent the region of the skin strips that are gripped by the clamps).
Tensile Strength Measurements of Ten Strips from Intact skin and Skin with an Incisional Wound (10 strips per mouse and 5 mice per group). The tensile strength values of strips are arranged left to right in sequence from the cephalad to the caudal region. *indicates strips at the “ends” of the incision with values greater than for strips “within” the incisions.
| Mouse | Tensile Strength [N] | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9 | #10 | ||
| Intact skin | 1 | 1.2 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 3.1 |
| 2 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2 | 1.6 | 1.8 | |
| 3 | 2.9 | 3 | 3 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 2 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 2.8 | 2.7 | |
| 4 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 2.8 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2 | 2 | |
| 5 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 2.2 | |
| Wounded skin | 1 | 1.9* | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.3 |
| 2 | 2.8* | 2.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 1.4 | |
| 3 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 1.9 | |
| 4 | 3.2* | 2.9 | 2.6 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 1.4 | |
| 5 | 2.1* | 1.4 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 3.2* | |
| Subject area | |
| More specific subject area | |
| Method name | |
| Name and reference of original method | Gorodetsky, R., W.H. McBride, and H.R. Withers, |
| Gorodetsky, R., et al., | |
| Gorodetsky, R., et al., | |
| Resource availability |