| Literature DB >> 31887972 |
Min Cheol Kang1, Silvia Yumnam1, Woo Sung Park2, Hae Min So3, Ki Hyun Kim3, Meong Cheol Shin2, Mi-Jeong Ahn2, Sun Yeou Kim1,4.
Abstract
Ulmus parvifolia is one of the medicinal plants used traditionally for treatment of wounds. We intended to investigate the wound healing effect of the powder of Ulmus parvifolia (UP) root bark in a mouse wound healing model. We also determined the mechanisms of effects of U. parvifolia in skin and skin wound healing effects using a keratinocyte model. Animal experiments showed that the wound lesions in the mice decreased with 200 mesh U. parvifolia root bark powder and were significantly reduced with treatment by UP, compared with those treated with Ulmus macrocarpa (UM). Results from in vitro experiments also revealed that UP extract promoted the migration of human skin keratinocytes. UP powder treatment upregulated the expression of the matrix metalloproteinase-2 and -9 protein and significantly increased transforming growth factor (TGF)-β levels. We confirmed that topical administration of the bark powder exerted a significant effect on skin wound healing by upregulating the expression of MMP and transforming growth factor-β. Our study suggests that U. parvifolia may be a potential candidate for skin wound healing including epidermal skin rejuvenation.Entities:
Keywords: Ulmus parvifolia; matrix metalloproteinase; skin rejuvenation; transforming growth factor; wound healing
Year: 2019 PMID: 31887972 PMCID: PMC7019489 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9010059
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
The angle of repose of Ulmus parvifolia (UP) root bark powder depending on particle size.
| Mesh | Particle Size (μm) | Angle of Repose (θ) |
|---|---|---|
| 20 | 355–850 | 57.2 ± 0.8 |
| 50 | 150 | 52.9 ± 0.7 |
| 100 | 75–150 | 51.9 ± 1.6 |
| 200 | ≤75 | 49.8 ± 1.1 |
Figure 1Effects of the root bark of U. parvifolia on wound healing in hairless mice. (A) Representative images of wounds from each group over a five-day period post-wounding. Madecassol® was used as positive control. (B) The graphical representation of the average wound closure in each group was measured using ImageJ software. (C) H and E-stained skin tissue sections and Masson’s trichrome-stained sections on day 5. Scale bar = 200 μm. Black arrow indicates inflammatory cells and red arrow indicates the hair follicle and glands in the wound site. Insets of main figures represent granulation tissue (50 μm). (D) Graphical representation of expression of collagen formation in dorsal. The values are shown as mean ± SEM (n = 7). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001 vs. the control group.
Figure 2Effects of UP extract on migration in HaCaT cells. (A) Cells were cultured in 96-well plates and treated with UP extract (1, 10, 20, 50, and 100 μg/mL). After 24 h, cell viability was measured using the MTT assay. (B,C) Wound areas were recorded over time using the IncuCyte ZOOM™ live cell-imaging platform. HaCaT cells were cultured with or without UP extract. The red line indicates the initial scratch wound mask, created immediately after wound creation. The values are shown as mean ± SD (n = 6). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001 vs. the control group.
Figure 3Effects of the root bark of U. parvifolia and U. macrocarpa on wound healing in hairless mice. (A) Two Ulmus root barks were applied to the wounds of SKH-1 mice for 14 days. Madecassol® was used as positive control. (B) The closure rates of 20 mm diameter wounds were measured. (C) Masson’s trichrome-stained tissue sections on day 14. Scale bar = 100 μm. (D) Graphical representation of expression of collagen formation in dorsal. The values are shown as mean ± SEM (n = 7). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001 vs. the control group.
Figure 4Effects of the root bark of U. parvifolia on the expression of MMPs and TGF-β1 in mouse dorsal skin tissue. (A) Western blot analyses of wounded skin showed the expression of (B) MMP-1, (C) MMP-2, (D) MMP-9, and (E) TGF-β1 on day 14 post-wounding. The values are shown as mean ± SEM (n = 7). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001 vs. the control group.