Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42502766›Full record

ArticleIranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR

Yutong Wu, Mohd Hasmizam Razali, Wentao Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Yutong WuDepartment of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Plastic Surgery and Repair, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Mohd Hasmizam RazaliAdvanced Nanomaterials Research Group, Faculty of Science and Marine Environment, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia.
Wentao WuDepartment of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Plastic Surgery and Repair, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Two major challenges frequently encountered during wound healing are excessive inflammatory responses and bacterial infection. Objectives: This study evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of DOP in an infected murine wound model, with a specific focus on the role of the SIRT1/HMGB1/NF-κB signaling axis. Methods: Mouse full-thickness skin defect models were established, and animals were divided into four cohorts: control, infected model, DOP-treated, and DOP plus the SIRT1-specific inhibitor EX527. All groups except the control group were inoculated with Results: For the primary endpoint, animals receiving DOP had markedly smaller unclosed wound areas on postoperative day 14 than untreated infected animals. Secondary analyses showed that DOP improved body weight recovery and reduced inflammatory cytokine secretion and corresponding mRNA transcript levels. Mechanistically, DOP increased SIRT1 protein levels, promoted HMGB1 deacetylation at the K29 residue with consequent nuclear sequestration, and suppressed IκBα proteolysis and NF-κB p65 phosphorylation. These protective effects were reversed by the SIRT1 inhibitor EX527. Conclusions: By activating SIRT1, DOP promotes K29 deacetylation of HMGB1 and retains this alarmin in the nucleus. The resulting suppression of NF-κB reduces inflammatory injury and counteracts the adverse effects of bacterial infection on wound repair. These findings provide an experimental basis for the potential application of DOP in the management of infected wounds.

Indexed as

Dendrobium Officinale PolysaccharideHMGB1NF-κB Signaling PathwaySIRT1Wound Healing

Identifiers

PMID42502766
PMCPMC13400950

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.