| Literature DB >> 30625985 |
Jingjing Chen1, Kaili Gao2, Shu Liu3, Shujun Wang4, Jeevithan Elango5, Bin Bao6, Jun Dong7, Ning Liu8,9, Wenhui Wu10,11.
Abstract
The development of biomaterials with the potential to accelerate wound healing is a great challenge in biomedicine. In this study, four types of samples including pepsin soluble collagen sponge (PCS), acid soluble collagen sponge (ACS), bovine collagen electrospun I (BCE I) and bovine collagen electrospun II (BCE II) were used as wound dressing materials. We showed that the PCS, ACS, BCE I and BCE II treated rats increased the percentage of wound contraction, reduced the inflammatory infiltration, and accelerated the epithelization and healing. PCS, ACS, BCE I, and BCE II significantly enhanced the total protein and hydroxyproline level in rats. ACS could induce more fibroblasts proliferation and differentiation than PCS, however, both PCS and ACS had a lower effect than BCE I and BCE II. PCS, ACS, BCE I, and BCE II could regulate deposition of collagen, which led to excellent alignment in the wound healing process. There were similar effects on inducing the level of cytokines including EGF, FGF, and vascular endothelial marker CD31 among these four groups. Accordingly, this study disclosed that collagens (PCS and ACS) from tilapia skin and bovine collagen electrospun (BCE I and BCE II) have significant bioactivity and could accelerate wound healing rapidly and effectively in rat model.Entities:
Keywords: collagen; fibroblasts proliferation and differentiation; hydroxyproline; wound healing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30625985 PMCID: PMC6357035 DOI: 10.3390/md17010033
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 5.118
Figure 1The different stages of wound healing in rats treated with collagens. BCS—bovine collagen sponge, PCS—pepsin soluble collagen sponge, ACS—acid soluble collagen sponge, BCE I—bovine collagen electrospun I, BCE II—bovine collagen electrospun II.
The effect of each group on total protein content in wound area tissues ( ± s, n = 6).
| Groups | Total Protein (mg/mL) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 Days | 7 Days | 14 Days | |
| Control | 7.93 ± 0.6 a | 8.03 ± 1.1 a | 9.15 ± 0.7 a |
| Woundplast | 8.12 ± 0.6 b | 9.15 ± 0.4 b | 10.3 ± 0.7 cd |
| BCS | 8.61 ± 0.4 bc | 9.52 ± 1.4 bc | 9.94 ± 1.1 b |
| PCS | 8.48 ± 0.8 bc | 9.58 ± 0.8 bc | 11.7 ± 1.3 bc |
| ACS | 8.65 ± 0.4 c | 9.66 ± 1.3 b | 13.3 ± 0.8 c |
| BCE I | 8.79 ± 0.9 c | 10.2 ± 0.8 c | 11.4 ± 0.4 bd |
| BCE II | 8.85 ± 0.5 c | 10.5 ± 0.7 c | 11.3 ± 0.5 bd |
Note: Different superscript alphabets in each column represent statistical significance (p < 0.05).
The effect of each group on the Hydroxyproline content in wound area tissues ( ± s, n = 6).
| Groups | Hydroxyproline Content (mg/g Wet Skin) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 Days | 7 Days | 14 Days | |
| Control | 5.26 ± 0.33 a | 6.12 ± 0.29 a | 6.79 ± 0.39 a |
| Woundplast | 5.46 ± 0.41 ab | 6.38 ± 0.49 a | 7.29 ± 0.18 ab |
| BCS | 5.60 ± 0.24 ab | 6.29 ± 0.36 a | 7.02 ± 0.39 ab |
| PCS | 5.47 ± 0.36 ab | 6.55 ± 0.44 b | 7.32 ± 0.43 b |
| ACS | 5.87 ± 0.42 b | 6.65 ± 0.34 b | 7.41 ± 0.42 b |
| BCE I | 5.42 ± 0.25 ab | 6.42 ± 0.35 a | 6.77 ± 0.33 a |
| BCE II | 5.66 ± 0.12 b | 6.68 ± 0.54 b | 7.22 ± 0.27 ab |
Note: Different superscript alphabets in each column represent statistical significance (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Histological analysis of H&E stained wounded tissues (Magnification, ×100) with histological scoring. The alphabetic letters e, d, gt and hf represent epidermis, dermis, granulation tissue, hair follicle, respectively. (Each bar represents the mean ± SD. * p < 0.05: significantly different from the control group.).
Histological evaluation of wound tissue in all groups by H&E staining.
| 0 | 1–3 | 4–6 | 7–9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inflammatory cells | Abundant | Moderate | Scant | Rarely |
| Fibroblast content | None | Scant | Moderate | Abundant |
| Re-epithelialization | None | Partial | Thin | Complete |
| Collagen deposition | None | Scant | Moderate | Abundant |
| Revascularizations | None | Scant | Moderate | Abundant |
Figure 3Immunohistochemical analysis of EGF expression in wounded tissues (Magnification, ×100); the histogram shows the total of positively stained cells of EGF in the dermal tissue per group. (Each bar represents the mean ± SD. * p < 0.05: significantly different from the control group.).
Figure 4Immunohistochemical analysis of fibroblast growth factor (FGF) expression in wounded tissues (Magnification, ×100); the histogram shows the total of positively stained cells of FGF in the dermal tissue per group. (Each bar represents the mean ± SD * p < 0.05: significantly different from the control group.
Figure 5Immunohistochemical analysis of CD31 expression in wounded tissues (Magnification, ×200). The histogram summarizes the microvessel density (MVD), which was determined by immunohistochemical staining for CD31. (Each bar represents the mean ± SD. * p < 0.05: significantly different from the control group.).