4.6 Article

Study on promoting regeneration of zebrafish skull by phycocyanin characterized by in vivo optical coherence tomography

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOPHOTONICS
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jbio.202100333

关键词

optical coherence tomography; phycocyanin; regeneration; skull; zebrafish

资金

  1. Guangzhou Science and Technology Plan Project [202102020140]
  2. Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation [2020A1515011104]
  3. Project of Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Guangdong Province of China [20202113]
  4. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Drug Non-clinical Evaluation and Research [2018B030323024]
  5. Key Program New Drug Creation of Guangdong Key Research and Development Plan [2019B020202001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the efficacy of phycocyanin in bone defect repairing was tested on a zebrafish skull defect model, and the evaluating process was monitored in vivo using optical coherence tomography (OCT). The results demonstrated that phycocyanin can effectively repair bone defects, but a high dosage may cause deformation of the skull.
In this study, the efficacy of phycocyanin in bone defect repairing was tested on a zebrafish skull defect model, and the evaluating process was monitored in vivo using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Thirty zebrafish were randomly divided into three groups, which were immersed in water and phycocyanin solution (50 and 100 mg/L) after skull defect creating. All zebrafish were examined by OCT immediately after craniotomy, and on the 10th and 20th days of phycocyanin treatment. All the model fish were euthanized to enable a histological evaluation of skull after 20 days of recovery. OCT images demonstrated that phycocyanin (50 mg/L) could repair a cranial defect within 20 days. A high concentration (100 mg/L) of phycocyanin may favor the recovery of bone abnormalities in 10 days, but with the extended treatment time to 20 days, a deformation of the skull occurs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据