| Literature DB >> 34066859 |
Yue-Hua Chen1, Zhou-Feng Rao1, Yu-Jie Liu2, Xiang-Sheng Liu1, Yu-Fei Liu1, Lan-Ju Xu3,4, Ze-Qi Wang1, Jing-Yue Guo1, Lin Zhang1, Yun-Sheng Dong1, Chun-Xiao Qi1, Chao Yang2, Shu-Fang Wang1,4.
Abstract
Diabetic foot wound healing is a major clinical problem due to impaired angiogeneEntities:
Keywords: angiogenesis; bioactive glass; cerium; diabetic foot ulcers; hydrogel
Year: 2021 PMID: 34066859 PMCID: PMC8151889 DOI: 10.3390/biom11050702
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomolecules ISSN: 2218-273X
Figure 1Characterization of Ce-BG. (A–C) TEM images of 0 Ce-BG, 2 Ce-BG and 5 Ce-BG. (D) XRD patterns of 0 Ce-BG, 2 Ce-BG and 5 Ce-BG. (E,F) EDX mapping images of 5 Ce-BG Si (green), Ce (orange). (G,H) XPS spectra of Ce in 2 Ce-BG and 5 Ce-BG.
Figure 2Characterization of hydrogels. (A–D) SEM images of lyophilized G, 0/G, 2/G and 5/G hydrogels. (E–H) EDX mapping images of 5/G hydrogel. (I) The compression modulus of hydrogels (n = 6). (J) The swelling ratio of hydrogels (n = 6). (K) Si ions concentrations released from the hydrogels (n = 3).
Figure 3The cytocompatibility of hydrogels. (A) Proliferation of HUVECs cultured in different hydrogel extracts (n = 6). (B) Proliferation of L929 cells cultured in different hydrogel extracts (n = 6). (C) Live/dead staining images at 1 and 5 days after L929 cells encapsulation in different hydrogels.
Figure 4Angiogenic activity evaluation of hydrogels. (A) Representative images of HUVECs transwell migration. (B) The photographical images of HUVECs tube formation by Matrigel after incubation for 12 h. (C) The quantification result of HUVECs migration (n = 3). (D) The quantification result of HUVECs tube formation (n = 3). *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001.
Figure 5Antibacterial activity evaluation of hydrogels. (A,B) Photographs of E. coli and S. aureus grown on agar plates with different treatments, respectively. (C) Survival percentage of E. coli with different treatments (n = 3). (D) Survival percentage of S. aureus with different treatments (n = 3). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 6The wound healing after different treatments. (A) The flow chart of the whole in vivo experiments. (B) Representative images of the skin wound area with different treatments on days 0, 7, 14 and 21. (C) Quantification of wound closure rate of different treatment groups (n = 5). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Figure 7Histology analysis in wounds treated with different hydrogels. (A) H&E staining of wound tissue after 7 and 21 days with different treatments. Black arrows indicated microscopic wound edges, blue arrow indicates skin appendages. (B) Masson’s trichrome staining of wound tissue after 7 and 21 days with different treatments, red arrow indicates skin appendages.
Figure 8Immunofluorescence staining of wound sections after 7, 14 and 21 days with different treatments. (A) Immunofluorescence images of CD31 (green: CD31; blue: nucleus). (B) Immunofluorescence images of α-SMA (green: α-SMA; blue: nucleus).