ArticleBiomedicines2021
Probing Skin Barrier Recovery on Molecular Level Following Acute Wounds: An In Vivo/Ex Vivo Study on Pigs.
Article in Biomedicines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mucoadhesive Buccal Patches Containing Resveratrol and/or Erythromycin-Loaded Lipid Microparticles as a Potential Targeted Strategy for the Prevention and Management of MRONJ in Patients Undergoing Oral Surgery.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Microfluidics, 3D bioprinted scaffold and organ-on-chip with biosensing activated therapeutic strategies for diabetic wound healing.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Safety Evaluation of Repeated Application of Polymeric Microarray Patches in Miniature Pigs.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- Animal Models of Human Pathology: Revision, Relevance and Refinements.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Dermal Absorption of Sesquiterpene Lactones from Arnica Tincture.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- 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 SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Proper skin barrier function is paramount for our survival, and, suffering injury, there is an acute need to restore the lost barrier and prevent development of a chronic wound. We hypothesize that rapid wound closure is more important than immediate perfection of the barrier, whereas specific treatment may facilitate perfection. The aim of the current project was therefore to evaluate the quality of restored tissue down to the molecular level. We used Göttingen minipigs with a multi-technique approach correlating wound healing progression in vivo over three weeks, monitored by classical methods (e.g., histology, trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL), pH) and subsequent physicochemical characterization of barrier recovery (i.e., small and wide-angle X-ray diffraction (SWAXD), polarization transfer solid-state NMR (PTssNMR), dynamic vapor sorption (DVS), Fourier transform infrared (FTIR)), providing a unique insight into molecular aspects of healing. We conclude that although acute wounds sealed within two weeks as expected, molecular investigation of stratum corneum (SC) revealed a poorly developed keratin organization and deviations in lipid lamellae formation. A higher lipid fluidity was also observed in regenerated tissue. This may have been due to incomplete lipid conversion during barrier recovery as glycosphingolipids, normally not present in SC, were indicated by infrared FTIR spectroscopy. Evidently, a molecular approach to skin barrier recovery could be a valuable tool in future development of products targeting wound healing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.