4.1 Article

Effect of Canine Adipose Mesenchymal Stem Cell Secretome on a Model of Second-intention Wound Healing in the Red-eared Slider Turtle (Trachemys scripta)

期刊

JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE DISEASES
卷 58, 期 2, 页码 368-372

出版社

WILDLIFE DISEASE ASSOC, INC
DOI: 10.7589/JWD-D-20-00100

关键词

Mesenchymal stem cell; secretome; Trachemys scripta; wound healing

资金

  1. Junta de Andalucia, Spain [PAIDI AGR262, BIO307]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to evaluate the effect of canine adipose MSC secretome (cS-MSC) on wound healing of red-eared slider turtles. The results showed that cS-MSC did not have a significant functional activity on the healing of turtle wounds.
Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) secretome refers to a variety of bioactive compounds that represents the more important pathway by which MSCs participate in tissue regeneration. Many of these compounds have shown variable functional activity even across non mammalian vertebrate species, although MSCs in turtles have not yet been described. Canine adipose MSC secretome has been successfully used experimentally in skin healing. Our aim was to conduct a blinded controlled study to evaluate the effect of canine adipose MSC secretome (cS-MSC) as an alternative for the healing of soft skin, second intention wounds of red-eared slider turtles (Trachemys scripta). Under general anesthesia, one circular, 6-mm full thickness wound was made in each rear leg of 14 females. After randomiration, cS-MSC was injected subcutaneously around one wound at days 1, 7, and 14, whereas the other wound acted as control. Biopsies from three animals' wounds were obtained at days 21, 28, 42, and 63. Differences in mean wound retraction at days 21 (n=14) and 28 (n-11) were statistically nonsignificant. The clinical and histopathologic scores performed blind by two different investigators were similar for treated and control wounds. In conclusion, we could not detect a significant functional activity of cS-MSC on wound healing of Trachemys scripta.

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

4.1
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