| Literature DB >> 35715816 |
Hendrik Lintel1, Darren B Abbas1, Christopher V Lavin1, Michelle Griffin1, Jason L Guo1, Nicholas Guardino1, Andrew Churukian1, Geoffrey C Gurtner2, Arash Momeni1, Michael T Longaker1,3, Derrick C Wan4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiation-induced skin injury is a well-known risk factor for impaired wound healing. Over time, the deleterious effects of radiation on skin produce a fibrotic, hypovascular dermis poorly suited to wound healing. Despite increasing understanding of the underlying pathophysiology, therapeutic options remain elusive. Deferoxamine (DFO), an iron-chelating drug, has been shown in prior murine studies to ameliorate radiation-induced skin injury as well as improve wound healing outcomes in various pathologic conditions when administered transdermally. In this preclinical study, we evaluated the effects of deferoxamine on wound healing outcomes in chronically irradiated murine skin.Entities:
Keywords: Deferoxamine; Ionizing radiation; Mouse model; Wound healing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35715816 PMCID: PMC9205074 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-022-03479-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 8.440
Fig. 1Schematic of mouse allocation across experimental conditions and a timeline of analyses performed on the wounds. Two wounds from each treatment condition were harvested and snap frozen at POD7 for NO assay. IR: irradiation; DFO: deferoxamine; POD: post-operative day; NO: nitric oxide
Fig. 2Gross wound healing measures. A Representative images of healing progression of excisional wounds by treatment condition. B Wound size quantification indicates DFO treated IR wounds showed accelerated wound closure relative to vehicle and IR untreated wounds but slower than nonirradiated wounds (n = 10 per condition). C Wound size at POD14 shows statistically significant smaller wounds in DFO treatment (mean 10.34%) than vehicle (22.38%;**p < 0.01) and IR untreated wounds (18.71%;*p < 0.05) while nonirradiated wounds had closed (0.03%;**p < 0.01). D Vehicle and IR untreated wounds had a higher rate of non-healing (n = 3) than DFO treated irradiated wounds (n = 1) at POD21. Nonirradiated wounds all closed. DFO: deferoxamine; IR: irradiation; POD: post-operative day; ns: not significant
Fig. 3Vascular changes in healing wounds. A Perfusion as measured by Laser doppler in wound bed over duration of healing. DFO demonstrates elevated perfusion measures throughout course of healing more closely mimicking nonirradiated wounds relative to radiated controls. B Laser Doppler perfusion measures reveal similar perfusion estimates between DFO and nonirradiated wounds when healed (mean: 196.8 vs. 174.9 respectively; p > 0.05). DFO wounds have significantly higher perfusion than vehicle (123.5;***p < 0.001) and IR untreated wounds (130.7;***p < 0.001). Representative images of Doppler scans of healed wounds are shown. C CD31 immunofluorescence reveals higher staining of CD31 with DFO (mean 407.4) relative to vehicle (208.0; ***p < 0.001) and IR untreated wounds (179.8; ***p < 0.001), with levels similar to nonirradiated wounds (378.1;p > 0.05). Representative images of CD31 staining on healed wound sections at 20 × magnification depicted per condition. Scale bar = 50 μm. DFO: deferoxamine; IR: irradiation; ns: not significant; POD: post-operative day
Fig. 4Histologic and suction cutometer analysis of healed wounds. A H + E staining of healed specimens revealed DFO treated irradiated wounds resembled nonirradiated wounds more closely in regards to wound thickness (mean 244.6 vs. 284.3 μm, respectively; *p < 0.05) rather than much thinner vehicle (111.7; ***p < 0.001) and IR untreated wounds (116.5; ***p < 0.001). Representative H + E images of healed wounds of each treatment condition taken at 10 × magnification shown (left). B On TC staining, DFO wounds also had similar collagen density (mean 7.79 × 106) to nonirradiated wounds (8.69 × 106; *p < 0.05) after healing, both of which had significantly higher density than vehicle (3.31 × 106; ***p < 0.001) and IR untreated wounds (3.24 × 106; ***p < 0.001). Representative TC images of healed wounds of each treatment condition taken at 10 × magnification shown (left). C Representative appearance of collagen in Picro images taken at 40 × magnification (left). UMAP representation of collagen ultrastructure in wounds in each treatment condition (right). An approximation of the clustering pattern beneath plotted points highlights DFO (green) clustering more closely to nonirradiated wounds (clear) than vehicle (red) or IR untreated wounds (blue). D Elasticity measured as skin displacement upon application of fixed negative pressure indicated healed DFO wounds had similar elasticity to nonirradiated wounds (mean 0.695 vs. 0.675 mm; p > 0.05). Healed vehicle (0.479;***p < 0.001) and IR untreated (0.465;***p < 0.001) wounds were found to be more stiff. Black scale bar = 100 μm. White scale bar = 25 μm. DFO: deferoxamine; H + E: Hematoxylin and Eosin; IR: irradiation; mm: millimeter; ns: not significant; Picro: Picrosirius Red; POD: post-operative day; TC: Masson’s Trichrome; UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection
Fig. 5Nitric oxide in healing irradiated wounds at POD7. A Representative images of iNOS staining on wound sections taken at 20 × magnification depicted per condition (left). iNOS staining revealed increased iNOS in DFO-treated wounds (mean 229.1) relative to that observed in vehicle (64.3;***p < 0.001) and IR untreated wounds (71.0;***p < 0.001). DFO iNOS quantification was comparable to nonirradiated wounds (210.4; p > 0.05). B Nitric oxide colorimetric assay normalized to nonirradiated wounds revealed DFO wounds had similar nitric oxide levels (1.051) in wounds at POD7 compared to nonirradiated wounds (1.00; p > 0.05). NO was lower in vehicle (0.74;***p < 0.001) and control (0.69;***p < 0.001) irradiated wounds relative to DFO treated nonirradiated wounds. Scale bar = 50 μm. iNOS: inducible nitric oxide synthase; IR: irradiation; DFO: deferoxamine; POD: post-operative day; NO: nitric oxide; ns: not significant