| Literature DB >> 31277455 |
Itxaso Garcia-Orue1,2, Edorta Santos-Vizcaino1,2, Alaitz Etxabide3, Jone Uranga3, Ardeshir Bayat4, Pedro Guerrero3, Manoli Igartua1,2, Koro de la Caba3, Rosa Maria Hernandez5,6.
Abstract
In the current study, we developed a novel gelatin-based bilayer wound dressing. We used different crosslinking agents to confer unique properties to each layer, obtaining a bioinspired multifunctional hydrofilm suitable for wound healing. First, we produced a resistant and non-degradable upper layer by lactose-mediated crosslinking of gelatin, which provided mechanical support and protection to overall design. For the lower layer, we crosslinked gelatin with citric acid, resulting in a porous matrix with a great swelling ability. In addition, we incorporated chitosan into the lower layer to harness its wound healing ability. FTIR and SEM analyses showed that lactose addition changed the secondary structure of gelatin, leading to a more compact and smoother structure than that obtained with citric acid. The hydrofilm was able to swell 384.2 ± 57.2% of its dry weight while maintaining mechanical integrity. Besides, its water vapour transmission rate was in the range of commercial dressings (1381.5 ± 108.6 g/m2·day). In vitro, cytotoxicity assays revealed excellent biocompatibility. Finally, the hydrofilm was analysed through an ex vivo wound healing assay in human skin. It achieved similar results to the control in terms of biocompatibility and wound healing, showing suitable characteristics to be used as a wound dressing.Entities:
Keywords: bilayer dressing; chitosan; ex vivo model; gelatin; human skin; wound healing
Year: 2019 PMID: 31277455 PMCID: PMC6680716 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics11070314
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Figure 1Scheme and photograph of gelatin bilayer films.
Summary of the developed monolayer hydrofilms (mHF) and bilayer hydrofilms (bHF) based on gelatin.
| Name | Mono Bilayer Hydrofilm | Crosslinking Agent | Chitosan Addition | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper Layer | Lower Layer | |||
| mHF-Lac | Monolayer | Lactose | No | |
| mHF-CA | Monolayer | Citric acid | No | |
| mHF-CA+Chit | Monolayer | Citric acid | Yes | |
| bHF | Bilayer | Lactose | Citric acid | No |
| bHF+Chit | Bilayer | Lactose | Citric acid | Yes |
Demographic data and source of explants.
| Patient Number | Gender | Age (Years) | Anatomical Source of Skin |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Female | 50 | Abdomen |
| 2 | Male | 60 | Abdomen |
| 3 | Female | 49 | Breast |
Figure 2Ex vivo assay scheme.
Figure 3Gelatin crosslinking. (A) Representation of the early stage of Maillard reaction between gelatin and lactose (gal=galactose) and the chemical reaction between gelatin and citric acid. (B) Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectra of mHF-Lac and mHF-CA. (C) Protein conformation in gelatin films crosslinked with lactose or citric acid. (D) Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis of mHF-Lac and mHF-CA cross-section.
Figure 4Hydrofilms characterisation. (A) Swelling curve. The percentage of water uptake regarding dry weight of the hydrofilms at different time points. ***p < 0.001 among mHF-Lac, bilayer hydrofilms (bHF and bHF+Chit) and monolayer hydrofilms crosslinked with citric acid (mHF-CA and mHF-CA+Chit). (B) Water vapour transmission rate (WVTR). Graphical representation of the WVTR of the hydrofilms ***p < 0.001 comparing mHF-Lac with bHF and bHF+Chit. Results are given as mean ± SD. (C) Cytotoxicity assay. Cell viability after incubating fibroblasts with the release medium of hydrofilms. *p < 0.05 comparing dialysed and humected formulations. Results are shown as mean ± SD.
Figure 5Ex vivo assay wound healing results. (A) LDH assay of the ex vivo assay. The results were represented as the viability of the three groups on different time points. *p < 0.05 comparing the control group and the group treated with bHF+Chit, on day 4; ***p > 0.001 comparing each group with the other two, on day 8. (B) Representative image of a tissue section stained with H&E on day 0. The scale bar indicates 500 µm. (C) Histological images of tissue sections of each group on day 8, processed with H&E. The scale bar indicates 500 µm. (D) Percentage of wound closure on day 8. Results are shown as the mean ± standard error of the mean. Results are shown as the mean ± standard error of the mean.
Figure 6(A) Representative images of tissue sections stained against PCNA. (B) Representation of PCNA positive cells percentage regarding to baseline. (C) Representative images of tissue sections stained against α-SMA. (D) Representation of quantitative analysis of α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA) stained area. (E) Representative images of tissue sections stained against cytokeratin 14. (F) Representation of quantitative analysis of cytokeratin-14 stained area. (G) Representative images of tissue sections stained against cytokeratin 10. (H) Representation of quantitative analysis of cytokeratin-10 stained area. **p > 0.001 comparing the group treated with the mHF-Lac and the other two groups on day 8. Scale bar on figures A, C, E and G indicates 200 µm. Results on images B,D,F and H are shown as the mean ± standard error of the mean.