Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33807251›Full record

ArticleBiomedicines2021

Probing Skin Barrier Recovery on Molecular Level Following Acute Wounds: An In Vivo/Ex Vivo Study on Pigs.

Enamul Haque Mojumdar, Lone Bruhn Madsen, Henri Hansson, Ida Taavoniku, Klaus Kristensen, Christina Persson, Anna Karin Morén, Rajmund Mokso, Artur Schmidtchen, Tautgirdas Ruzgas and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Enamul Haque MojumdarDepartment of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health and Society, Malmö University, SE-205 06 Malmö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1482-7394
Lone Bruhn MadsenTimeline Bioresearch AB, Scheelevägen 2, SE-223 63 Lund, Sweden.
Henri HanssonGalenica AB, Medeon Science Park, SE-205 12 Malmö, Sweden.
Ida TaavonikuTimeline Bioresearch AB, Scheelevägen 2, SE-223 63 Lund, Sweden.
Klaus KristensenTimeline Bioresearch AB, Scheelevägen 2, SE-223 63 Lund, Sweden.
Christina PerssonDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, SE-205 02 Malmö, Sweden.
Anna Karin MorénGalenica AB, Medeon Science Park, SE-205 12 Malmö, Sweden.
Rajmund MoksoDepartment of Solid Mechanics & MAX IV Laboratory, Lund University, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2245-2775
Artur SchmidtchenDivision of Dermatology and Venereology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, SE-221 84 Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9209-3141
Tautgirdas RuzgasDepartment of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health and Society, Malmö University, SE-205 06 Malmö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0304-7528
Johan EngblomDepartment of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health and Society, Malmö University, SE-205 06 Malmö, Sweden.
Malmö University · SEIdeon Science Park · SELund University · SEUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

Stiftelsen för Kunskaps- och Kompetensutveckling 20180108
6 · The paper itself

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

acute woundhistologyin vivo/ex vivolipidpHpolarization transfer solid state NMR (PTssNMR)skin barriersmall and wide-angle X-ray diffraction (SWAXD)stratum corneumtrans-epidermal water loss (TEWL)

Identifiers

PMID33807251
PMCPMC8065685
OpenAlexW3146623166

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.