4.5 Article

Substance P accelerates wound healing in type 2 diabetic mice through endothelial progenitor cell mobilization and Yes-associated protein activation

期刊

MOLECULAR MEDICINE REPORTS
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 3035-3040

出版社

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2017.6344

关键词

substance P; wound; diabetes; endothelial progenitor cells; Yes-associated protein

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea - Ministry of Education [2015R1D1A1A09057839]
  2. Korean Health Technology R&D Project (Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea) [HI13C1479]
  3. Kyung Hee University [KHU-20160701]
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2015R1D1A1A09057839] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wound healing is delayed in diabetes due to a number of factors, including impaired angiogenesis and poor dermal healing. The present study demonstrated that subcutaneous administration of substance P (SP) accelerates wound healing in db/db type 2 diabetic mice (db/db mice). SP injection (10 nM/kg, subcutaneously) enhanced angiogenesis, induced the mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) and increased the number of EPC-colony forming units (EPC-CFUs) in the bone marrow of db/db mice. Immunohistochemistry was performed to check the effects of SP on the cellular proliferation and the subcellular localization of Yes-associated protein (YAP) in the wound dermis. SP also upregulated cellular proliferation in the injured dermis of db/db mice. Compared with the control group, an increased number of cells in the wound dermis of SP-treated mice exhibited nuclear localization of YAP, which induces cellular proliferation. The results of the current study indicate that subcutaneous administration of SP may be a promising therapeutic strategy to treat diabetic wounds exhibiting impaired angiogenesis and dysfunctional dermal wound healing.

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

4.5
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