ArticleMolecular biology reports2024
Evaluation of the effects of Andiz extract on the experimentally wound in rats by microbiological and gene expression methods.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate the effects of andiz extract on wound healing and compare it with saline and chlorhexidine gluconate. Microbial DNA load was used to evaluate its antibacterial effects, and gene expression methods were used to assess its contribution to cytokine release and wound healing. METHODS AND
resultsA standardized wound site was created with a 3 mm diameter punch on 32 male Wistar albino rats. The rats were divided into four groups: Control (n = 5), Saline (n = 9), Chlorhexidine gluconate (n = 9), and Andiz extract (n = 9). Five rats in the control group were euthanised without any treatment. Irrigations of the Saline, Chlorhexidine, and Extract groups were provided regularly. After the tissue samples were taken in the 1st week, 2nd week, and 3rd week, three rats were euthanized each week for each group. The total bacterial DNA load on the samples taken was determined by a nano spectrophotometer. β-actin was chosen as housekeeping, and target gene primers were created for TGF-β and IL-1β. Expression amounts of target genes were measured by Real-Time PCR with the application of the created primers. There is a significant difference between the Extract group and the other groups regarding total bacterial DNA load. The whole bacterial load was 185% less than the initial values. TGF-β and IL-1β genes evaluated regarding gene expression were measured at the highest value in the Extract group.
conclusionsThis study showed the antibacterial effects of the Extract and its positive contributions to wound healing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39704962What 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.