4.4 Article

Experimental ischemic wounds:: Correlation of cell proliferation and insulin-like growth factor I expression and its modification by different local IGF-I release systems

期刊

WOUND REPAIR AND REGENERATION
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 278-283

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1067-1927.2005.130310.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated cell proliferation and local insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) expression in ischemic wounds after topical application of IGF-I through different delivery systems. IGF-I dressings were fabricated from an IGF-I containing polyvinyl alcohol film placed on a standard hydrogel dressing. In vitro, the release of IGF-I from this dressing was assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. For animal experiments, a standardized ischemic skin flap containing a full-thickness wound was created on the back of male Sprague-Dawley rats. An identical wound outside the flap served as control. We initially investigated intracutaneous pO(2) (p(ti)O(2)), cell proliferation, and local IGF-I expression. In a second setting, wounds were treated either with IGF-I dissolved in methylcellulose gel or with an IGF-I dressing, and ulcer size and cell proliferation were assessed. In vitro, approximately 60% of IGF-I was released from the IGF-I dressing, compared to a 97% release from methylcellulose gel. In vivo, ischemic wounds showed less cell proliferation and decreased IGF-I expression than nonischemic wounds. A lower local p(ti)O(2) correlated with larger wound size, less cell proliferation, and decreased IGF-I expression. Ulcer size was reduced after treatment with either IGF-I dressing or methylcellulose gel. However, cell proliferation only increased after treatment with IGF-I dressing, but not after methylcellulose gel treatment. We conclude that IGF-I expression is decreased in ischemic wounds and correlates with low cell proliferation. This can be reversed by local IGF-I application, but the efficacy of treatment depends on the delivery system.

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

4.4
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