4.1 Article

Biofilm model on mice skin wounds

Journal

ACTA CIRURGICA BRASILEIRA
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

ACTA CIRURGICA BRASILEIRA
DOI: 10.1590/acb370306

Keywords

Biofilms; Pseudomonas Infections; Wound Healing; Models Animal

Categories

Funding

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais [APQ-00904-15]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated a biofilm model of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in mice with excisional cutaneous wounds. The results showed that the presence of biofilms delayed the wound healing process and raised questions about the ease of biofilm formation in chronic wounds.
Purpose: To evaluate a biofilm model of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in excisional cutaneous wound in mice. Methods: Preclinical, translational study conducted with 64 C57BL/6 mice randomly assigned to control and intervention groups. Evaluation was on days D0, D3, D5, D7 and D10 of wound making. The profile of biofilm formation and induction was evaluated using wound closure kinetics, quantitative culture, and evaluation of wounds using transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Clinical evaluation was performed by liver tissue culture, weight variation, and quantification of leukocytes in peripheral blood. Analyses were performed with GraphPad Prism software. Results: Bacterial load for induction of infection with P. aeruginosa and survival of animals was 104 UFC.mL(-1). In D5 (p < 0.0001) and D7 (p < 0.01), animals in the intervention group showed a delay in the healing process and had their wounds covered by necrotic tissue until D10. Statistical differences were observed in wound cultures and weight at D5 and D7 (p < 0.01). Liver cultures and leukocyte quantification showed no statistical differences. No bacteria in planktonic or biofilm form were identified by TEM. Conclusion: The findings raise questions about the understanding of the ease of formation and high occurrence of biofilm in chronic wounds.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available