Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29140982›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Development, standardization and testing of a bacterial wound infection model based on ex vivo human skin.

Christoph Schaudinn, Christin Dittmann, Jana Jurisch, Michael Laue, Nazende Günday-Türeli, Ulrike Blume-Peytavi, Annika Vogt, Fiorenza Rancan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Nanocarriers for Skin Applications: Where Do We Stand?Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Comparison of Two Hair Removal Methods in Sprague-Dawley Rats (Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christoph SchaudinnAdvanced Light and Electron Microscopy, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7094-7721
Christin DittmannAdvanced Light and Electron Microscopy, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Jana JurischClinical Research Center for Hair and Skin Science, Charité -Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charité, Berlin, Germany.
Michael LaueAdvanced Light and Electron Microscopy, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Nazende Günday-TüreliMJR PharmJet GmbH, Überherrn, Germany.
Ulrike Blume-PeytaviClinical Research Center for Hair and Skin Science, Charité -Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charité, Berlin, Germany.
Annika VogtClinical Research Center for Hair and Skin Science, Charité -Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charité, Berlin, Germany.
Fiorenza RancanClinical Research Center for Hair and Skin Science, Charité -Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charité, Berlin, Germany.
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DERobert Koch Institute · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current research on wound infections is primarily conducted on animal models, which limits direct transferability of these studies to humans. Some of these limitations can be overcome by using-otherwise discarded-skin from cosmetic surgeries. Superficial wounds are induced in fresh ex vivo skin, followed by intradermal injection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa under the wound. Subsequently, the infected skin is incubated for 20 hours at 37°C and the CFU/wound are determined. Within 20 hours, the bacteria count increased from 107 to 109 bacteria per wound, while microscopy revealed a dense bacterial community in the collagen network of the upper wound layers as well as numerous bacteria scattered in the dermis. At the same time, IL-1alpha and IL-1beta amounts increased in all infected wounds, while-due to bacteria-induced cell lysis-the IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations rose only in the uninfected samples. High-dosage ciprofloxacin treatment resulted in a decisive decrease in bacteria, but consistently failed to eradicate all bacteria. The main benefits of the ex vivo wound model are the use of healthy human skin, a quantifiable bacterial infection, a measureable donor-dependent immune response and a good repeatability of the results. These properties turn the ex vivo wound model into a valuable tool to examine the mechanisms of host-pathogen interactions and to test antimicrobial agents.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalColony Count, MicrobialHumansIn Vitro TechniquesPseudomonas aeruginosaPseudomonas InfectionsSkin Diseases, BacterialWound Infection

Identifiers

PMID29140982
PMCPMC5687718
OpenAlexW2770250225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.