| Literature DB >> 35662842 |
Yunqing Dong1,2, Weidong Zhu1,2, Xiaoxuan Lei2,3, Xin Luo4, Qi Xiang4, Xuanru Zhu2, Qiao Pan1,2, Panshi Jin1,2, Biao Cheng1,2.
Abstract
Wound repair is accomplished by the interaction between the cells involved in the repair and the extracellular matrix (ECM). Collagen is the main component of ECM, which is involved in transduction of signal, transportation of growth factors and cytokines. Fibronectin (FN) is also an important ECM, which participates in the initiation of fibroblast cell (FC) and promotes adhesion, migration, proliferation and differentiation of target cells. Compared with natural protein, the recombinant protein prepared by artificial method has the advantages of poor immunogenicity, wide range of sources, low cost and high activity. In this study, we used recombinant human-like collagen (RHC) and recombinant human-like fibronectin (rhFN) to treat acute wounds in C57BL/6 mice individually or in combination, and explored their effects on wound healing. Our study confirmed that these two recombinant proteins could effectively promote the proliferation, migration and adhesion of FCs. Meanwhile, it could positively regulate the healing speed and quality of acute wounds, re-epithelialization, collagen deposition, inflammation and angiogenesis. Moreover, we proved that the combination of the two was better than the treatment alone. Consequently, it has a good prospect as a new tissue material in the field of skin repair.Entities:
Keywords: angiogenesis; collagen deposition; fibroblast cell; inflammation; re-epithelialization; recombinant human-like collagen (RHC); recombinant human-like fibronectin (rhFN); wound healing
Year: 2022 PMID: 35662842 PMCID: PMC9160431 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.908585
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
FIGURE 1Immunofluorescence identification images of FCs.
FIGURE 2SEM images of RHC and rhFN.
FIGURE 3The effect of RHC + rhFN on biocompatibility with FCs. (A) Live/Dead staining images of FCs at hour 24. Scale bar = 500 μm (B) Calculation and comparison of cell viability on days 1,2 and 3. Data are presented as the mean ± SD (n = 6). Statistical analysis: ∗p < 0.05.
FIGURE 4The effect of RHC + rhFN on migration with FCs. (A) Scratch images of FCs at hours 12, 24 and 36. Scale bar = 500 μm. (B) Calculation and comparison of invaded area at hours 12, 24 and 36. Data are presented as the mean ± SD (n = 6). Statistical analysis: ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
FIGURE 5The effect of RHC + rhFN on adhesion with FCs. (A) Crystal violet staining images of FCs at hour 4. Scale bar = 500 μm. (B) Calculation and comparison of adhesion area at hour 4. Data are presented as the mean ± SD (n = 6). Statistical analysis: ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
FIGURE 6The analysis of wound healing rate. (A) Representative photographs on PID 3, 5, 7 and 10. (B) Calculation and comparison of wound healing percentage on PID 3, 5, 7 and 10. Data are presented as the mean ± SD (n = 5). Statistical analysis: ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
FIGURE 7The analysis of histology. (A) Representative H&E staining images on PID 10. Scale bar = 200 μm. Representative Masson staining images on PID 10. Scale bar = 100 μm. (B) Calculation and comparison of average epithelial thickness on PID 10. Data are presented as the mean ± SD (n = 5). Statistical analysis: ∗p < 0.05. (C)Calculation and comparison of collagen mean optical density on PID 10. Data are presented as the mean ± SD (n = 5). Statistical analysis: ns p > 0.05.
FIGURE 8The analysis of immunohistochemistry. (A) Representative images of TNF-α on PID 5 and 10. Scale bar = 50 μm. (B) Calculation and comparison of TNF-α on PID 5 and 10. Data are presented as the mean ± SD (n = 5). Statistical analysis: ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01. (C) Representative images of IL -1β on PID 5 and 10. Scale bar = 50 μm. (D) Calculation and comparison of IL -1β on PID 5 and 10. Data are presented as the mean ± SD (n = 5). Statistical analysis: ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01. (E) Representative images of IL -6 on PID 5 and 10. Scale bar = 50 μm. (F) Calculation and comparison of IL -6 on PID 5 and 10. Data are presented as the mean ± SD (n = 5). Statistical analysis: ns p > 0.05 (G) Representative images of TGF-β1 on PID 5 and 10. Scale bar = 50 μm (H) Calculation and comparison of TGF-β1 on PID 5 and 10. Data are presented as the mean ± SD (n = 5). Statistical analysis: ∗p < 0.05 (I) Representative images of VEGF on PID 5 and 10. Scale bar = 50 μm (J) Calculation and comparison of VEGF on PID 5 and 10. Data are presented as the mean ± SD (n = 5). Statistical analysis: ∗∗p < 0.01 (K) Representative images of α-SMA on PID 5 and 10. Scale bar = 50 μm (L) Calculation and comparison of α-SMA on PID 5 and 10. Data are presented as the mean ± SD (n = 5). Statistical analysis: ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01.