4.0 Article

Therapeutic effects of three human-derived materials in a mouse corneal alkali burn model*

Journal

CUTANEOUS AND OCULAR TOXICOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 315-321

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15569527.2019.1573244

Keywords

Alkali injury; peripheral blood serum; umbilical cord serum; amniotic membrane suspension

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To compare the therapeutic effects of human derivatives in a mouse alkali burn model. Methods: The right eyes of mice were injured using NaOH. After alkali injury, one of the following agents was topically administered for 7 d: human amniotic membrane (hAM) suspension, human umbilical cord serum (hUCS), and human peripheral blood serum (hPBS), or saline. The epithelial defect areas on days 1, 2, and 3 degrees of opacity on days 2, 3, and 7, and corneal neovascularization (NV) areas on day 7 were evaluated. Histologic examination and mRNA expression levels of tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, interleukin (IL)-6, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, MMP-8, and MMP-9 were also evaluated on day 7. Results: The epithelial defect areas in the hUCS group were smaller than those in the control and hPBS groups on day 3 (p < .05, respectively). The epithelial defect areas in the hAM suspension group showed smaller than those in the control and hPBS groups on days 1 and 2 (p < .05, respectively). The degrees of opacity were lower in all treatment groups than that of the saline control group on day 7 (p < .05, respectively). Corneal NV areas were not different among groups on day 7 (p = 0.20). The expression levels of TNF-alpha, IL-6, MMP-8, and MMP-9 mRNA and the infiltration of the inflammatory cells in all treatment groups were lesser than those in the control group on day 7 (p< .05, respectively). Conclusions: All treatments reduced inflammatory reactions and corneal opacity development. Corneal reepithelialization was faster in the hUCS group.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available