| Literature DB >> 33953292 |
Leila Zahedi1, Pedram Ghourchi Beigi1, Mojtaba Shafiee1, Fatemeh Zare2, Hamed Mahdikia1, Majid Abdouss3, Mohammad-Amin Abdollahifar4, Babak Shokri5,6.
Abstract
Diabetes Mellitus is one of the most worrying issues among illnesses, and its chronic subsequences almost refer toEntities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33953292 PMCID: PMC8100292 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-89105-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Parameters of the plasma polymerization process.
| Name | Carrier gas flow (sccm) | Diluent gas flow (sccm) | Time (min) |
|---|---|---|---|
| PEG1 | 10 | – | 15 |
| PEG2 | 2 | 8 | 15 |
| PEG3 | 10 | – | 30 |
| PEG4 | 2 | 8 | 30 |
The PCR primers.
| Genes (accession number) | Primer sequences |
|---|---|
| KGF | F = GGCAATCAAAGGGGTGGA R = CCTCCGCTGTGTGTCCATTTA |
| IL1-α | F = TGTGTTGCTGAAGGAGATTCCG R = AAGCTGCGGATGTGAAGTAGT |
| TNF-α | F = ATGGGCTCCCTCTCATCAGT R = GCTTGGTGGTTTGCTACGAC |
Figure 1ATR FT-IR spectra of (a) plasma treated PP mesh with oxygen gas, (b) Control PP mesh.
Figure 2The EDX spectrum of (a) F + B and (b) F + B + P PP meshes.
Average values of atomic percent of C, O, N and Cl as obtained by EDX technique for Control, F + B and F + B + P PP meshes.
| C (%) | N (%) | O (%) | Cl (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| F + B | 89.16 | 6.71 | 4.07 | 0.06 |
| F + B + P | 72.03 | 10.51 | 17.32 | 0.14 |
Figure 3FE-SEM micrographs at 75,000 magnification of (a) control PP mesh, (b) plasma-treated PP mesh, (c) BET loaded control PP mesh, (d) BET loaded plasma-treated PP mesh, (e) BET loaded plasma-polymerized PP mesh, (f) BET loaded plasma-treated and plasma polymerized PP mesh, with the corresponding magnification at × 15,000.
Figure 4(a) BET loading percentage and (b) BET releasing percentage of the PP meshes as a function of F time.
Figure 5(a) Comparison of the effect of the density of the original solution of BET on the percentage of drug loading and releasing. (b) Comparison of the drug releasing percentage of the polymerized surface of F + B PP meshes. (c) Comparison of the drug releasing percentage of the surface of F + B and F + B + P PP meshes.
Figure 8(I) Stereological analysis of wound tissue at different time points post-injury. (A–C) Mean ± SD of the total volume of epidermis and dermis at days 7, 5 and 28 post-injury in the wound healing site in the study groups as compared by the one-way ANOVA and LSD; (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001). (II) Stereological analysis of wound tissue at different time points post-injury. (A–C) Mean ± SD of the number of fibroblasts, neutrophils and basal cells at days 7, 5 and 28 post injury in the wound healing site in the study groups as compared by the ANOVA and LSD; (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001) and Repeated Measures. ANOVA, analysis of variance and LSD, least significant difference; C; D; D + F + B; D + F + B + P. (III, A–L) Micrographs of a wound healing area following injury in different groups at 7, 15, and 28 days in the study groups. H&E staining. Scale bar = 10 µm.
Figure 6The wound closure area (mm2) at days 1, 7, 15 and 28 post injury in the wound area of the different groups are shown. Mean ± SD of the wound closure area in the study groups as compared by the ANOVA and LSD; (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001). ANOVA analysis of variance; C; D; D + F + B; D + F + B + P, LSD least significant difference.
Figure 7Quantification of wound closure rate. Gross digital camera images illustrating wound closure area in Control, diabetic, D + F + B, and D + F + B + P at the different time points. The pictures show that repairing process at the 1st, 7th, 15th and 28th day in the study groups.
Figure 9Photomicrograph of the wound healing area following injury stained with H&E (×40). Ne neutrophils, F fibroblasts, B basal cells, V vessel.
Figure 10Tensiometery analysis of wound tissue at different time points post-injury. Mean ± SD of the energy absorption, wound strength, bending stiffness, maximum force and stress high load at 28 post-injury in the wound healing site in the study groups as compared by the ANOVA and LSD; (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001). One-way ANOVA, analysis of variance and LSD, least significant difference; C; D; D + F + B; D + F + B + P.
Figure 11Molecular analysis of wound tissue at different time points post-injury. (A–C) Mean ± SD of the levels of mRNA expression in KGF, IL1-α and TNF-α at days 7, 5 and 28 post-injury in the wound healing site in the study groups as compared by the ANOVA and LSD; (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001) and Repeated measures ANOVA. ANOVA, analysis of variance and LSD, least significant difference; C; D; D + F + B; D + F + B + P.