Mengjie Wu1,2, Andrey Ethan Rubin3, Tianhong Dai4,5, Rene Schloss6, Osman Berk Usta2, Alexander Golberg3, Martin Yarmush2,6,7. 1. Department of Orthodontics, The Affiliated Stomatology Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China. 2. Center of Engineering in Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Porter School of Environment and Earth Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 4. Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Vaccine and Immunotherapy Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA. 7. Shriners Burn Hospital for Children, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
Objective: The incidence of severe infectious complications after burn injury increases mortality by 40%. However, traditional approaches for managing burn infections are not always effective. High-voltage, pulsed electric field (PEF) treatment shortly after a burn injury has demonstrated an antimicrobial effect in vivo; however, the working parameters and long-term effects of PEF treatment have not yet been investigated. Approach: Nine sets of PEF parameters were investigated to optimize the applied voltage, pulse duration, and frequency or pulse repetition for disinfection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in a stable mouse burn wound model. The bacterial load after PEF administration was monitored for 3 days through bioluminescence imaging. Histological assessments and inflammation response analyses were performed at 1 and 24 h after the therapy. Results: Among all tested PEF parameters, the best disinfection efficacy of P. aeruginosa infection was achieved with a combination of 500 V, 100 μs, and 200 pulses delivered at 3 Hz through two plate electrodes positioned 1 mm apart for up to 3 days after the injury. Histological examinations revealed fewer inflammatory signs in PEF-treated wounds compared with untreated infected burns. Moreover, the expression levels of multiple inflammatory-related cytokines (interleukin [IL]-1α/β, IL-6, IL-10, leukemia inhibitory factor [LIF], and tumor necrosis factor-alpha [TNF-α]), chemokines (macrophage inflammatory protein [MIP]-1α/β and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 [MCP-1]), and inflammation-related factors (vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], macrophage colony-stimulating factor [M-CSF], and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) were significantly decreased in the infected burn wound after PEF treatment. Innovation: We showed that PEF treatment on infected wounds reduces the P. aeruginosa load and modulates inflammatory responses. Conclusion: The data presented in this study suggest that PEF treatment is a potent candidate for antimicrobial therapy for P. aeruginosa burn infections.
Objective: The incidence of severe infectious complications after burn injury increases mortality by 40%. However, traditional approaches for managing burn infections are not always effective. High-voltage, pulsed electric field (PEF) treatment shortly after a burn injury has demonstrated an antimicrobial effect in vivo; however, the working parameters and long-term effects of PEF treatment have not yet been investigated. Approach: Nine sets of PEF parameters were investigated to optimize the applied voltage, pulse duration, and frequency or pulse repetition for disinfection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in a stable mouse burn wound model. The bacterial load after PEF administration was monitored for 3 days through bioluminescence imaging. Histological assessments and inflammation response analyses were performed at 1 and 24 h after the therapy. Results: Among all tested PEF parameters, the best disinfection efficacy of P. aeruginosa infection was achieved with a combination of 500 V, 100 μs, and 200 pulses delivered at 3 Hz through two plate electrodes positioned 1 mm apart for up to 3 days after the injury. Histological examinations revealed fewer inflammatory signs in PEF-treated wounds compared with untreated infected burns. Moreover, the expression levels of multiple inflammatory-related cytokines (interleukin [IL]-1α/β, IL-6, IL-10, leukemia inhibitory factor [LIF], and tumor necrosis factor-alpha [TNF-α]), chemokines (macrophage inflammatory protein [MIP]-1α/β and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 [MCP-1]), and inflammation-related factors (vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], macrophage colony-stimulating factor [M-CSF], and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) were significantly decreased in the infected burn wound after PEF treatment. Innovation: We showed that PEF treatment on infected wounds reduces the P. aeruginosa load and modulates inflammatory responses. Conclusion: The data presented in this study suggest that PEF treatment is a potent candidate for antimicrobial therapy for P. aeruginosa burn infections.
Entities:
Keywords:
burn infection; disinfection; inflammation; pulsed electric field
Authors: Xiaoxiang Li; Nima Saeidi; Martin Villiger; Hassan Albadawi; Jake D Jones; Kyle P Quinn; William G Austin; Alexander Golberg; Martin L Yarmush Journal: J Tissue Eng Regen Med Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 3.963
Authors: Louis W Feurino; Yuqing Zhang; Uddalak Bharadwaj; Rongxin Zhang; Fei Li; William E Fisher; F Charles Brunicardi; Changyi Chen; Qizhi Yao; L Min Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Jaideep Banerjee; Piya Das Ghatak; Sashwati Roy; Savita Khanna; Craig Hemann; Binbin Deng; Amitava Das; Jay L Zweier; Daniel Wozniak; Chandan K Sen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mariana Barreto Serra; Wermerson Assunção Barroso; Neemias Neves da Silva; Selma do Nascimento Silva; Antonio Carlos Romão Borges; Iracelle Carvalho Abreu; Marilene Oliveira da Rocha Borges Journal: Int J Inflam Date: 2017-07-25