4.2 Article

Gelatin-Cerium Oxide Nanocomposite for Enhanced Excisional Wound Healing

期刊

ACS APPLIED BIO MATERIALS
卷 1, 期 2, 页码 487-495

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsabm.8b00208

关键词

gelatin; cerium oxide nanoparticles; hydrogel; genipin; wound healing; thermoporometry

资金

  1. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India [BT/PR4406/NNT/28/574/2011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Researchers are keen on formulating composites blending biomacromolecules with functional nanoparticles to achieve greater efficacy to expedite the wound healing process. In the present work, we have engineered a genipin cross-linked gelatin hydrogel composite containing optimized concentration of cerium oxide nanoparticles (G-ONp) for the purpose of wound healing. The concentration of cerium oxide nanoparticles in G-ONp has been optimized to be 250 mu g/mL, which shows more than 80% cell viability in cytotoxicity study. X-ray diffractogram of ONp displays characteristic lattice planes of cubic fluorite structure, and transmission electron micrograph reveals that the particles are sized between 2.5-6.5 nm. The genipin dimeric cross-linkage in G-ONp has been confirmed by UV-vis peak at 603 nm. Swelling ratio of G-ONp (25.3 +/- 1.2) has been found to be three-fold to that of native gelatin (9.2 +/- 1.4). As far as pore size distribution is concerned, lyophilized sponges of gelatin and G-ONp had microsized pores in the range of 1-140 mu m and 1-19 mu m, respectively, and hydrogels of the same determined by thermoporometry had nanosized pores in the range of 7-48 nm and 7-24 nm, respectively. The in vivo wound healing and histological examination have revealed that G-ONp treated rat group has shown more infiltration of leukocytes and larger deposition of collagen when compared to gelatin and control groups and has healed the wound in 12 days. These findings suggest that the composite of G-ONp is superior to gelatin in increasing wound healing and can be envisaged as a wound dressing material in future.

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

4.2
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