| Literature DB >> 33239072 |
Houssein Ahmadi1, Abdollah Amini2, Fatemeh Fadaei Fathabady1, Atarodsadat Mostafavinia3, Fatemeh Zare1, Roohollah Ebrahimpour-Malekshah1, Mustafa Neshat Ghalibaf1, Matin Abrisham1, Fatemehalsadat Rezaei4, Richard Albright5, Seyed Kamran Ghoreishi6, Sufan Chien7, Mohammad Bayat8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetic foot ulcer is the most costly and complex challenge for patients with diabetes. We hereby assessed the effectiveness of different preconditioned adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (AD-MSCs) and photobiomodulation protocols on treating an infected ischemic wound in type 1 diabetic rats.Entities:
Keywords: Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells; Diabetes mellitus Ischemia; Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection; Preconditioning stem cell, photobiomodulation; Rats; Tensiometric properties; Wound closure rate; Wound healing
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33239072 PMCID: PMC7688005 DOI: 10.1186/s13287-020-01967-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther ISSN: 1757-6512 Impact factor: 6.832
Fig. 1A photo of the wound, photobiomodulation (PBM) target points, and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell- (AD-MSC) injection points
Specifications of in vitro and in vivo photobiomodulation parameters
| | 630 | 0.05 | 46, 92 | 1.2,2.4 | 1.56 | 1.91 | 0.0261 |
| | 810 | 0.05 | 46, 92 | 1.2,2.4 | 1.56 | 1.91 | 0.0261 |
| NILTVIR202 Noura Instruments, Tehran, Iran | |||||||
| | |||||||
| | 75 W | ||||||
| | 0.001 W | ||||||
| | 0.001 W/cm2 | ||||||
| | 890 nm | ||||||
| | 890±10 nm | ||||||
| | 80 Hz | ||||||
| | 1 cm2 | ||||||
| | 1.12 cm | ||||||
| | 180 ns | ||||||
| | 200 s | ||||||
| | 0.2 J/cm2 | ||||||
| | 9 | ||||||
| | 1.8 and 25.2 J/cm2 | ||||||
| | Immediately after surgery, 6 days per week, for 16 consecutive days | ||||||
| | L07 | ||||||
| | MUSTANG 2000, Technica Co., Russia | ||||||
Fig. 2Mean ± SD of the MTT test (a, b), population doubling time (c, d), and apoptosis rate results (e, f) of AD-MSC of the studied groups compared by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and least significant difference (LSD) tests. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Fig. 3Comparison of colony-forming units of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-infected wounds in the studied groups by the LSD test. *p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ***p< 0.001
Fig. 4a Comparison of wound closure rate from all groups according to the LSD test. The corresponding estimated proportions of the logistic regression model to the data in each group are shown in b. *p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ***p< 0.001
Fig. 5Comparison of bending stiffness (a) and stress high load (b), of the wounds in the experimental groups according to the LSD test. ***p < 0.001
Fig. 6Comparison of numbers of neutrophils (a), macrophages (b), inflammatory cells (c), fibroblasts (d), and vascular lengths (e) of the wounds from the five study groups by the LSD test. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001