4.5 Article

Liposomal gene transfer of keratinocyte growth factor improves wound healing by altering growth factor and collagen expression

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 139, 期 2, 页码 222-228

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2006.09.005

关键词

gene transfer; KGF; wound healing; growth factors; gene therapy; skin

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Growth factors affect the complex cascade of wound healing; however, interaction between different growth factors during dermal and epidermal regeneration are still not entirely defined. In the present study, we thought to determine the interaction between keratinocyte growth factor (KGF) administered as liposomal cDNA with other dermal and epidermal growth factors and collagen synthesis in an acute wound. Materials and methods. Rats received an acute wound and were divided into two groups to receive weekly subcutaneous injections of liposomes plus the Lac-Z gene (0.22 mu g, vehicle), or liposomes plus the KGF cDNA (2.2 mu g) and Lac-Z gene (0.22 mu g). Histological and immunohistochemical techniques were used to determine growth factor, collagen expression, and dermal and epidermal structure. Results. KGF cDNA increased insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3), and fibroblast growth factor (FGF), decreased transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta), while it had no effect on platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) levels in the wound. KGF cDNA significantly increased collagen Type IV at both the wound edge as well as the wound bed, while it had no effect on collagen Type I and Ill. KGF cDNA increased re-epithelialization, improved dermal regeneration, and increased neovascularization. Conclusions. Exogenous administered KGF cDNA causes increases in IGF-I, IGF-BP3, FGF, and collagen IV and decreases TGF-beta concentration. KGF gene transfer accelerates wound healing without causing an increase in collagen I or III. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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