Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27792773›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

RNA-Seq Transcriptomic Responses of Full-Thickness Dermal Excision Wounds to Pseudomonas aeruginosa Acute and Biofilm Infection.

S L Rajasekhar Karna, Peter D'Arpa, Tsute Chen, Li-Wu Qian, Andrea B Fourcaudot, Kazuyoshi Yamane, Ping Chen, Johnathan J Abercrombie, Tao You, Kai P Leung

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Comparative Transcriptome Analysis of Superficial and Deep Partial-Thickness Burn Wounds in Yorkshire vs Red Duroc Pigs.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2022
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Repair Process Impairment byFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2019
    Review
  12. Review
  13. The Wound Reporting in Animal and Human Preclinical Studies (WRAHPS) Guidelines.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S L Rajasekhar KarnaDental and Craniofacial Trauma Research and Tissue Regeneration Directorate, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Peter D'ArpaUS Army Center for Environmental Health Research, Fort Detrick, Maryland, United States of America.
Tsute ChenThe Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Li-Wu QianDental and Craniofacial Trauma Research and Tissue Regeneration Directorate, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Andrea B FourcaudotDental and Craniofacial Trauma Research and Tissue Regeneration Directorate, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Kazuyoshi YamaneDental and Craniofacial Trauma Research and Tissue Regeneration Directorate, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Ping ChenDental and Craniofacial Trauma Research and Tissue Regeneration Directorate, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Johnathan J AbercrombieDental and Craniofacial Trauma Research and Tissue Regeneration Directorate, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Tao YouDental and Craniofacial Trauma Research and Tissue Regeneration Directorate, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Kai P LeungDental and Craniofacial Trauma Research and Tissue Regeneration Directorate, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, Texas, United States of America.
United States Army Institute of Surgical Research · USCenter for Environmental Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections of wounds in clinical settings are major complications whose outcomes are influenced by host responses that are not completely understood. Herein we evaluated transcriptomic changes of wounds as they counter P. aeruginosa infection-first active infection, and then chronic biofilm infection. We used the dermal full-thickness, rabbit ear excisional wound model. We studied the wound response: towards acute infection at 2, 6, and 24 hrs after inoculating 106 bacteria into day-3 wounds; and, towards more chronic biofilm infection of wounds similarly infected for 24 hrs but then treated with topical antibiotic to coerce biofilm growth and evaluated at day 5 and 9 post-infection. The wounds were analyzed for bacterial counts, expression of P. aeruginosa virulence and biofilm-synthesis genes, biofilm morphology, infiltrating immune cells, re-epithelialization, and genome-wide gene expression (RNA-Seq transcriptome). This analysis revealed that 2 hrs after bacterial inoculation into day-3 wounds, the down-regulated genes (infected vs. non-infected) of the wound edge were nearly all non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs), comprised of snoRNA, miRNA, and RNU6 pseudogenes, and their down-regulation preceded a general down-regulation of skin-enriched coding gene expression. As the active infection intensified, ncRNAs remained overrepresented among down-regulated genes; however, at 6 and 24 hrs they changed to a different set, which overlapped between these times, and excluded RNU6 pseudogenes but included snRNA components of the major and minor spliceosomes. Additionally, the raw counts of multiple types of differentially-expressed ncRNAs increased on post-wounding day 3 in control wounds, but infection suppressed this increase. After 5 and 9 days, these ncRNA counts in control wounds decreased, whereas they increased in the infected, healing-impaired wounds. These data suggest a sequential and coordinated change in the levels of transcripts of multiple major classes of ncRNAs in wound cells transitioning from inflammation to the proliferation phase of healing.

Indexed as

BiofilmsPseudomonas aeruginosaAnimalsFemaleGene Expression RegulationPseudomonas InfectionsRabbitsRNASkin Diseases, BacterialTranscriptomeWounds and InjuriesRNA

Identifiers

PMID27792773
PMCPMC5085052
OpenAlexW2542271799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.