Eliane Tagliari1, Leticia Fuganti Campos1, Antonio Carlos Campos2, Thaís Andrade Costa-Casagrande3, Lúcia de Noronha4. 1. Postgraduate Program in Clinical Surgery, Health Sciences Sector, Federal University of Paraná; Curitiba, PR, Brazil. 2. Department of Surgery, Health Sciences Sector, Federal University of Paraná; Curitiba, PR, Brazil. 3. Professional Master Program in Industrial Biotechnology, Positivo University; Curitiba, PR, Brazil. 4. Pathology Laboratory, Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Manipulating intestinal microbiota with probiotics might stimulate skin response. Understanding all stages of the healing process, as well as the gut-skin-healing response can improve the skin healing process. AIM: To evaluate the effect of perioperative oral administration of probiotics on the healing of skin wounds in rats. METHODS: Seventy-two Wistar male adult rats were weighed and divided into two groups with 36 each, one control group (supplemented with oral maltodextrin 250 mg/day) and one probiotic group (supplemented with Lactobacillus paracasei LPC-37, Bifidobacterium lactis HN0019, Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001, Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM® at a dose of 250 mg/day), both given orally daily for 15 days. The two groups were subsequently divided into three subgroups according to the moment of euthanasia: in the 3rd, 7th and 10th postoperative days. RESULTS: There were no significant changes in weight in both groups. Wound contraction was faster in probiotic group when compared to the controls, resulting in smaller wound area in the 7th postoperative day. As for histological aspects, the overall H&E score was lower in the probiotic group. The probiotic group showed increased fibrosis from 3rd to the 7th postoperative day. The type I collagen production was higher in the probiotic group at the 10th postoperative day, and the type III collagen increased in the 7th. CONCLUSION: The perioperative use of orally administrated probiotic was associated with a faster reduction of the wound area in rats probably by reducing the inflammatory phase, accelerating the fibrosis process and the deposition of collagen.
BACKGROUND: Manipulating intestinal microbiota with probiotics might stimulate skin response. Understanding all stages of the healing process, as well as the gut-skin-healing response can improve the skin healing process. AIM: To evaluate the effect of perioperative oral administration of probiotics on the healing of skin wounds in rats. METHODS: Seventy-two Wistar male adult rats were weighed and divided into two groups with 36 each, one control group (supplemented with oral maltodextrin 250 mg/day) and one probiotic group (supplemented with Lactobacillus paracaseiLPC-37, Bifidobacterium lactis HN0019, Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001, Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM® at a dose of 250 mg/day), both given orally daily for 15 days. The two groups were subsequently divided into three subgroups according to the moment of euthanasia: in the 3rd, 7th and 10th postoperative days. RESULTS: There were no significant changes in weight in both groups. Wound contraction was faster in probiotic group when compared to the controls, resulting in smaller wound area in the 7th postoperative day. As for histological aspects, the overall H&E score was lower in the probiotic group. The probiotic group showed increased fibrosis from 3rd to the 7th postoperative day. The type I collagen production was higher in the probiotic group at the 10th postoperative day, and the type III collagen increased in the 7th. CONCLUSION: The perioperative use of orally administrated probiotic was associated with a faster reduction of the wound area in rats probably by reducing the inflammatory phase, accelerating the fibrosis process and the deposition of collagen.
The skin is a varied ecosystem composed of 1.8 m2 of tissue that covers
the whole body, rich in folds, cutaneous attachments and contains a diverse
microbiota
. Recently, advanced molecular analyses of the cutaneous microbiota revealed
a great diversity and these vary according to its topographic location on the
body
. Healing is a dynamic cellular process involving molecular and biochemical
events aimed at tissue reconstitution
,
. Healing can be evaluated by clinical, mechanical, biochemical and
histological parameters
,
. The microbiota of the skin also plays a key role in the immunological
response and can interfere in the wound healing
. The perception of the skin as an ecosystem rich in living biological
components and present in different locations explains the delicate balance between
host and microorganisms. The skin microbiota is influenced by the intestinal
microbiota and has also been shown to interact with the host symbiotically,
modulating inflammation and the immune system, acting on the biotransformation of
xenobiotics and the absorption of micronutrients, synthesizing vitamins, enzymes and
proteins used by the host, fermenting energy substrates, providing resistance to
pathogens and changing the amount of energy available in the diet
. The manipulation of the healing process with the use of probiotics has been
studied both by topical application as well as by oral use. Probiotics are defined
by the World Health Organization as “live microorganisms that when given in adequate
amounts, confer a health benefit to the host
,
,
,
. Probiotics have been associated with improved healing of intestinal ulcers
and healing of cutaneous wounds, among other actions already described in the
literature
.The objective of this study was to analyze the effect of the oral administration of
probiotics on cutaneous healing in rats by macroscopic and histological aspects as
well as by the deposition of collagen on the wound.
METHODS
The study was part of the research on Tissue Healing of the Graduate Program in
Surgery of the Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil. The animal
experiments were carried out in accordance with the norms established by the
Brazilian Federal Law No. 11,794, of October 8, 2008, Resolution 196/96 of the
National Health Council, norms foreseen by the National Council of Control of Animal
Experimentation (CONCEA) after approval of the Ethics Committee on the Use of
Animals (CEUA) of the Positivo University (Opinion No. 294).
Animals and probiotic administration
During the whole experiment the animals were packed in appropriate polypropylene
boxes with wooden chips bed, receiving water and fed with
Presence®-Purina ad libitum. Two animals were housed per box, kept in
an air conditioned room at a constant temperature of 21° C, with humidity
control and exposed to the brightness of 12 h of light a day, automatically
controlled. A total of 72 adult male Wistar rats weighing +250 g obtained from
the Positivo University laboratory were used. The rats were weighed and divided
into two groups with 36 animals each, one control which received maltodextrin
250 mg/day) and one probiotic group supplemented with a probiotic
Probiatop® from FQM-FARMA compound that contained
Lactobacillus paracaseiLPC-37, Bifidobacterium
lactis HN0019, Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001,
Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM®, at the dose of
250 mg/day, which corresponds to the approximate dose of 200,000 to 210,000 CFU
(colony forming units), administered orally once a day, starting five days
before surgery until the euthanasia day, with the aid of a spatula
mixed in cream cheese. The two groups were subsequently divided into
three subgroups according to the moment of the euthanasia in the 3rd
postoperative (3PO) day; 7th postoperative (7PO) day and
10th postoperative (10PO) day, with 12 rats each.
Surgical procedure
After five days of preoperative oral administration of either probiotics or
maltodextrin, the rats were anesthetized and subjected to an excisional dorsal
square wound, standardized by a mold measuring 2x2 cm. The anesthesia was via
inhalation (isoflurane) and then maintained with an association of ketamine
hydrochloride 80 mg/kg and hydrochloride of xylazine 10 mg/kg intramuscularly,
being maintained under the inhalation effect of the anesthetic throughout the
procedure. After recovery, they returned to their original cages receiving water
and were allowed rat chow ad libitum. Liquid acetaminophen was used in a daily
dose of 200 mg/kg/day orally, until the 4th postoperative day. They
were evaluated in 3PO; 7PO and 10PO days (Figure
1).
FIGURE 1
Study design
The wounds were photographed at a standard distance of 15 cm. The analysis and
calculation of the areas, in square millimeters, were performed by the
Image-Pro® Plus software (version 4.5, Media Cybernetics,
Rockville, Maryland, USA).
Euthanasia and collection of materials
On the 3PO (C3 and P3), 7PO (C7 and
P7) and 10PO (C10 and P10) days the rats
were also submitted to euthanasia in a closed system with isoflurane.
Immediately after death, the lesions were excised and the entire wound extension
with a 1 cm margin of intact skin were included and stored with 10% formaldehyde
in order to preserve their morphological structures for later histological study
and collagen densitometry determination.
Histological analysis
The pieces were cut into blocks in a rotating microtome, with cuts of five
micrometers thickness. For each wound, a histological slide was made with 3-6
cuts. The sections were executed perpendicular to the surface of the dermis, in
the central region and at the edges of the wound and submitted to dehydration
and diaphanization in xylol and stained with H&E. The reading of the slides
was performed under an Olympus BX40 optical microscope (Tokyo, Japan), with
magnifications of 20x. The types and quantity of the predominant cells in the
inflammatory reaction (neutrophils), the presence of interstitial edema and
vascular congestion, and the degree of fibroblast, neovascularization and
macrophage tissue formation were evaluated. The data were classified as
accentuated (3), moderate (2) and discrete (1), according to the intensity in
which they were found, and transformed into quantitative variables by assigning
index to the histological findings. The presence of edema, congestion and
polymorphonuclear cells were indicative of an acute inflammatory process,
punctuating negatively, and the formation of fibroblasts, neovascularization and
monocytes were findings that indicated a chronic inflammatory process,
punctuating positively. After the assignment of the indices, these were added to
a total final score for subsequent statistical comparison between the
groups
.
Collagen densitometry
Histological slides were stained with Picrosirius-red F3BA and photographed, were
each image was captured under normal light and polarized light. Four fields per
wound were selected for the slide readings, in a standardized way, two of the
border and two of the central area of the wound, always from top to bottom.
Images were transmitted from the ScopeA1® microscope (Zeiss, Germany)
connected to the AxioCam MRc (Zeiss, Germany) digital camera to an HP ZR2440W
color monitor. The images were recorded by AxioVision 4.9 Software and were
analyzed by the Image-Pro Plus® 4.5 software (Media Cybernetics, Rockville,
Maryland, United States). In the RGB (Red, Green, Blue) system, the thicker and
more strongly birefringent collagen fibers are colored with red-orange (type I
or mature collagen), and the thinner, sparsely birefringent fibers were colored
with shades of green (type III or immature collagen).
Statistical analysis
The results were described by averages, medians, minimum values, maximum values
and standard deviations. For the comparison between the groups, on each day of
evaluation, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used. The comparisons
between the evaluation days, within the control and probiotic groups, were made
using the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test. Values of p<0.05 indicated
statistical significance. The data was organized in an Excel spreadsheet and
analyzed with the IBM SPSS Statistics® software, v.20.
RESULTS
Throughout the experiment, there were no deaths. The body weight did not present
significant changes in any group during the whole experiment (day -5 (3PO p=0.150;
7PO p=0.410; 10PO p=0.107), day 0 (3PO p=0.867, 7PO p=0.0851, 10PO p=0.185), day 3PO
(3PO p=0.741; 7PO=0.599; 10PO p=0.629), day 7PO (7PO p=0.730; 10PO p=0.549) and 10PO
(10PO p=0.937).In Figure 2A are shown the results for the
histological indicators of the inflammatory reaction. For the edema, congestion
and polymorphonuclear variables, there was no significant difference at any
moment when the control and probiotic groups were compared. Fibrosis at the 7PO
day was significantly higher in the probiotic group when compared to controls
(p=0.028). For the neovascularization and monocyte variables, there were no
significant differences between the groups. Also in Figure 2B it can be seen that the overall H&E score was
better in the probiotic group when compared to the control in the 3PO (p=0.017)
and 7PO (p=0.014). Figure 3 shows examples
of the histological evolution (edema, congestion, polymorphonuclear, fibrosis,
neovascularization and monocytes) between control and probiotic, at the 3PO, 7PO
and 10PO days. It was observed that the probiotic group showed less edema,
congestion and polymorphonuclears and the counting of the monocytes was
equivalent.
FIGURE 2
At times 3PO, 7PO and 10PO between Control (C) and Probiotic (P)
groups: A) graph showing the amount of fibrosis; B) graph showing
cell histological evolution; C) graph showing the wound tissue area
(mm2), at times 3PO, 7PO and 10PO.
FIGURE 3
Histological evolution (edema, congestion, polymorphonuclear,
fibrosis, neovascularization and monocytes) between control and
probiotic: A and B) 3PO A=control, B=probiotic; C and D) 7PO C=
control; D=probiotic); E and F) 10PO E=control and F=probiotic
Collagen analysis
Table 1 shows the results of the
evaluation of the wound deposition of Type I and Type III collagens. The type I
was higher in the probiotic group on the 10PO (p=0.007) as compared to the
control group. There was an increase in type III collagen in the 7PO (p=0.014)
in the probiotic group when compared to the control group. In Figure 4 the distribution of type I and type
III collagens is shown at times 3PO, 7PO and 10PO, for both the control and the
probiotic groups.
TABLE 1
Evaluation of collagen I and collagen III (in the total area),
expressed in mm2, in the control and probiotic groups, at
times 3PO, 7PO and 10PO
Variable
Group
n
Mean ± standard deviation
p*(3rd x 7th x
10th)
3PO day
7PO day
10PO day
Collagen I
Area (mm2)
Control
12
1.33 ± 0.88
0.96 ± 0.85
0.62 ± 0.61
0.313
Probiotic
12
1.75 ± 0.66
0.30 ± 0.23
1.38 ± 0.73
<0.001
p** (C x P)
0.266
0.028
0.007
Collagen III
Area (mm2)
Control
12
0.019 ± 0.014
0.018 ± 0.010
0.032 ± 0.027
0.598
Probiotic
12
0.014 ± 0.013
0.029 ± 0.012
0.029 ± 0.028
0.023
p** (C x P)
0.178
0.014
0.932
FIGURE 4
Example of histological evolution (edema, congestion,
polymorphonuclears, fibrosis, neovascularization and monocytes) in
both control and probiotic groups at the 3PO (A and B), 7PO (C and
D) and 10PO (E and F) days
Wound tissue area
As described in Figure 2C, wound contraction
was higher in the probiotic group in the 7PO when compared to the control,
resulting in a smaller wound tissue area (43.4±5.2 vs. 47.2±4,9 mm2,
p=0.013). As shown in Figure 4, the
evolution of wound contraction was faster in the probiotic group as compared to
controls.
DISCUSSION
Probiotics and their metabolites are considered regulators of various biological
functions, and their effects are being studied in the intestine-skin axis,
controlling the healing of wounds
. Probiotics can be used topically or systemically (by the oral route). Many
studies relate the benefits of applying probiotics topically, demonstrating
improvement in wound healing by reducing bacterial load and increasing tissue repair
in rodent wound models
. The systemic effects of probiotics promote the connection between the
intestinal and the cutaneous microbiota, decrease inflammation, alter the
composition of the microbiota in both sites and regulate the innate immune
system
. The oral use improves the intestinal microbiota and the absorption of
essential nutrients for the wound healing, such as vitamins, minerals and cofactors
for the key enzymes involved in the regulation of cutaneous healing
,
.Scotti et al.
showed in their review that differences in the microbial composition of the
intestine can affect the homeostasis of energy extraction, which may imply in gain
or loss of weight in the host when supplemented with probiotic. In this study, there
was no difference in weight on the days evaluated in any groups.Wound healing is a highly dynamic process involving a complex sequence of cellular
and biochemical events, ranging from an immediate response to skin cell damage and
invasive microbial signals to inflammatory, angiogenic, and ultimately fibroplasia
and scar formation
,
,
,
. The phenomena occur simultaneously, self-regulated and interfering with
each other. It has been divided into three dynamic phases: inflammatory phase,
proliferative phase and remodeling phase
,
,
. The interaction between inflammation, cell and humoral responses with
intense cytokines production and liberation is fundamental for the healing process
itself
. The present study describes a model of cutaneous excisional wound healing
in rats in order to evaluate the effect of the oral administration of probiotic on
skin wound healing. Macroscopic and microscopic evaluations of cutaneous wounds in
rats were done in three different moments: the 3PO, 7PO, and 10PO days.Neutrophils are the first cells recruited to the lesion area. Their main function is
to protect the host from infection by combating invasive microorganisms and/or by
removing cellular debris, as well as presenting antigens. However, activated
neutrophils secrete bioactive substances, such as proteases and free radicals, which
can lead to tissue damage if in excess
,
. The keratinocytes then migrate into the injured dermis and proliferate to
form the granulation tissue which is intended to restore skin barrier function.
Fibroblasts invade the clot and angiogenesis occurs, followed by tissue remodeling,
controlled by fibroblasts that produce collagen and form the scar
,
.Many monocyte and macrophage functions have been linked to the activation of
Toll-like receptors (TLRs)
,
,
,
. The response to skin lesions in animals is triggered by molecular patterns
associated with host-derived damage and the activation of inflammatory cells
. The findings of acute inflammatory process, such as interstitial edema and
vascular congestion, are less closely linked to the process of cell proliferation,
whereas the chronic inflammatory process is histologically related to the
polymorphonuclear infiltrate, granulation tissue and fibrosis
. Fibrosis is defined as the interstitial fiber deposit that marks the onset
of the scar
.The proliferative phase, marked by the presence of fibrosis, was faster in the
probiotic group on the 7PO day, when compared to the controls, resulting in a
smaller wound tissue area at that moment. Probably the use of probiotic stimulated
the collagen deposition and facilitated the fibrosis, improving the healing process.
The amount of collagen on the 7PO day in the probiotic group was equivalent to that
observed in controls on the 10PO day. When analyzing the H&E general score, it
is expected that in the initial phase (3PO) the scores are negative, but in the
probiotic group these were less negative. At 7 days (7PO), when the subacute phase
starts, the probiotic group score was already positive, showing a faster resolution
of the healing process in the probiotic group when compared to the control group. In
the 10PO the probiotic group showed signs of stabilization of the chronic healing
phase and signs of matrix remodeling.The reduction of the wound area was faster in the probiotic group. By comparing wound
area contraction, fibroblast proliferation and histological evolution it is clear
that the group supplemented with probiotic had a better resolution of the healing
process.A possibly involved mechanism in this process is related to the role of TLRs
,
,
,
,
. External and internal epithelial coating tissues express TLRs, such as the
skin and the gut. The commensal microbiota expresses antimicrobial peptides
(AMPs)
,
. AMPs also stimulate and increase TLR pathways. They induce the production
of chemokines with chemotactic activity and also modulate the function of dendritic
cells and T-lymphocytes to promote wound healing and to maintain skin barrier
homeostasis
,
,
,
. The expression of TLR in neutrophils, fibroblasts, monocytes and
macrophages is essential for the healing response
,
. The appearance of TLR ligands indicates change in tissue integrity, which
requires containment and repair. TLR-deficient animals were delayed in wound
healing, especially in the neovascularization, re-epilation and fibrosis
processes
. The role of TLRs in cutaneous healing has been heavily explored in
scientific studies, especially in relation to scar fibrosis
,
,
,
,
,
. According to the results found in the histological markers, it is believed
that these were probably related to the action of probiotics, via TLRs, on the
cutaneous healing in rats.The findings were also confirmed by the collagen deposition analysis. Type III
collagen is rich in water, poorly polymerized and works as a filler. Type I is low
in water, very polarized and its function is traction. The resistance of a scar is
given by the amount of collagen deposited and by the way the fibers are
deposited
,
. The healing process begins from the periphery to the center, boosting the
organization of the fibers to remodel the collagen. The filling given by type III
collagen to the scar area was greater and occurred on the 7PO in the probiotic
group, but not in the control group, resulting in a greater production of collagen
type I, which was greater in the probiotic group at the 10PO day. Poutahidis et
al.
evaluated the oral use of probiotic drink (L. reuteri) in
mice, and the wound closure was marked by accelerated maturation of the granulation
tissue and collagen deposition, what occurred from the sixth postoperative day in
the group supplemented with L. reueri when compared to the controls
supplemented with water, similar to our findings.Modulating the microbiota using probiotics of different species involves a variety of
possible mechanisms, including: a) competition with pathogenic bacteria by nutrients
and binding sites in the host cell; b) inactivation of toxins and metabolites; c)
production of antimicrobial substances that inhibit the growth of pathological
microorganisms; d) stimulation/modulation of the host immune response, involving
epithelial cells, dendritic cells and regulatory T- lymphocytes, both in the
gastrointestinal tract and in the skin
,
.Advanced studies done in animal models and also in humans showed the beneficial
effects between gut bacteria and a healthier appearance of the skin. One of them,
carried out by Levkovich et al.
, brought positive results with Lactobacillus reuteri
supplementation in increasing dermal thickness and folliculogenesis, as well as
potentiating sebum production and improving skin brightness
.Heydari et al.
studied the effect of probiotic (L. plantarum) on cutaneous
wounds of rats, on days 1, 3, 7, 14 and 21PO, where the results showed an earlier
acute phase, with a lower total number of neutrophils in the 3PO and reduction of
the wound area, probably by reducing inflammation and the released growth factors,
which may have helped to achieve an earlier re-epithelization. These findings
corroborate the results presented here.Probiotics also participate in the improvement of skin differentiation and
keratinization process, in the modulation of the cutaneous immune response and in
the process of cutaneous healing
. Probiotics given orally result in increased Treg Foxp3+ cells in the lymph
nodes of the skin, positively regulating the expression of IL10, decreasing tissue
damage at the border of the wound and reducing inflammation in the murine model
.
CONCLUSION
The perioperative use of orally administrated probiotic was associated with a faster
reduction of the wound area in rats probably by reducing the inflammatory phase,
accelerating the fibrosis process and the deposition of collagen.
Authors: Jovanka Lukic; Vivien Chen; Ivana Strahinic; Jelena Begovic; Hadar Lev-Tov; Stephen C Davis; Marjana Tomic-Canic; Irena Pastar Journal: Wound Repair Regen Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 3.617
Authors: Vladimir G Druzhinin; Elizaveta D Baranova; Ludmila V Matskova; Pavel S Demenkov; Valentin P Volobaev; Varvara I Minina; Alexey V Larionov; Snezana A Paradnikova Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2022-06-02
Authors: Tiago Jacometo Coelho de Castilho; Gustavo Henrique Doná Rodrigues de Almeida; Eneri Vieira de S L Mello; Antônio Carlos L Campos Journal: Arq Bras Cir Dig Date: 2021-01-25
Authors: Tuti Kusumaningsih; Anis Irmawati; Diah Savitri Ernawati; Chiquita Prahasanti; Mohammed Aljunaid; Sarah Amelia Journal: Vet World Date: 2021-05-23