4.7 Article

An optimised protocol for plateletrich plasma preparation to improve its angiogenic and regenerative properties

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-19419-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. FONCyT [PICT 0352-2014, PICT 0152-2015, PICT 1859-2015]
  2. L'Oreal Foundation-UNESCO FWIS [CONICET-L'Oreal 2512/15]
  3. Roemmers Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is used as a source of growth factors in regenerative medicine, its effectiveness remains controversial, partially due to the absence of PRP preparation protocols based on the regenerative role of platelets. Here, we aimed to optimise the protocol by analysing PRP angiogenic and regenerative properties. Three optimising strategies were evaluated: dilution, 4 degrees C pre-incubation, and plasma cryoprecipitate supplementation. Following coagulation, PRP releasates (PRPr) were used to induce angiogenesis in vitro (HMEC-1 proliferation, migration, and tubule formation) and in vivo (chorioallantoic membrane), as well as regeneration of excisional wounds on mouse skin. Washed platelet releasates induced greater angiogenesis than PRPr due to the anti-angiogenic effect of plasma, which was decreased by diluting PRPr with saline. Angiogenesis was also improved by both PRP preincubation at 4 degrees C and cryoprecipitate supplementation. A combination of optimising variables exerted an additive effect, thereby increasing the angiogenic activity of PRPr from healthy donors and diabetic patients. Optimised PRPr induced faster and more efficient mouse skin wound repair compared to that induced by non-optimised PRPr. Acetylsalicylic acid inhibited angiogenesis and tissue regeneration mediated by PRPr; this inhibition was reversed following optimisation. Our findings indicate that PRP pre-incubation at 4 degrees C, PRPr dilution, and cryoprecipitate supplementation improve the angiogenic and regenerative properties of PRP compared to the obtained by current methods.

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

4.7
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