↓ Skip to main content

Matrix- and plasma-derived peptides promote tissue-specific injury responses and wound healing in diabetic swine

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Matrix- and plasma-derived peptides promote tissue-specific injury responses and wound healing in diabetic swine
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12967-016-0946-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony R. Sheets, Conner J. Massey, Stephen M. Cronk, Mark D. Iafrati, Ira M. Herman

Abstract

Non-healing wounds are a major global health concern and account for the majority of non-traumatic limb amputations worldwide. However, compared to standard care practices, few advanced therapeutics effectively resolve these injuries stemming from cardiovascular disease, aging, and diabetes-related vasculopathies. While matrix turnover is disrupted in these injuries, debriding enzymes may promote healing by releasing matrix fragments that induce cell migration, proliferation, and morphogenesis, and plasma products may also stimulate these processes. Thus, we created matrix- and plasma-derived peptides, Comb1 and UN3, which induce cellular injury responses in vitro, and accelerate healing in rodent models of non-healing wounds. However, the effects of these peptides in non-healing wounds in diabetes are not known. Here, we interrogated whether these peptides stimulate healing in a diabetic porcine model highly reminiscent of human healing impairments in type 1 and type 2-diabetes. After 3-6 weeks of streptozotocin-induced diabetes, full-thickness wounds were surgically created on the backs of adult female Yorkshire swine under general anesthesia. Comb1 and UN3 peptides or sterile saline (negative control) were administered to wounds daily for 3-7 days. Following sacrifice, wound tissues were harvested, and quantitative histological and immunohistochemical analyses were performed for wound closure, angiogenesis and granulation tissue deposition, along with quantitative molecular analyses of factors critical for angiogenesis, epithelialization, and dermal matrix remodeling. Comb1 and UN3 significantly increase re-epithelialization and angiogenesis in diabetic porcine wounds, compared to saline-treated controls. Additionally, fluorescein-conjugated Comb1 labels keratinocytes, fibroblasts, and vascular endothelial cells in porcine wounds, and Far western blotting reveals these cell populations express multiple fluorescein-Comb1-interacting proteins in vitro. Further, peptide treatment increases mRNA expression of several pro-angiogenic, epithelializing, and matrix-remodeling factors, importantly including balanced inductions in matrix metalloproteinase-2, -9, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1, lending further insight into their mechanisms. Comb1 and UN3 stimulate wound resolution in diabetic Yorkshire swine through upregulation of multiple reparative growth factors and cytokines, especially matrix metalloproteinases and inhibitors that may aid in reversing the proteolytic imbalance characteristic of chronically inflamed non-healing wounds. Together, these peptides should have great therapeutic potential for all patients in need of healing, regardless of injury etiology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 89 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 21%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Master 10 11%
Other 6 7%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 16 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 18 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,856,861
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,977
of 4,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,120
of 350,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#53
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 350,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.