4.6 Article

Evaluation of Effects of Topical Estradiol Benzoate Application on Cutaneous Wound Healing in Ovariectomized Female Mice

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 11, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163560

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [15H06236]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15H06236, 16K20712, 16K11931, 16J03757] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Estrogen promotes cutaneous wound healing in ovariectomized (OVX) female mice. However, the effects of topical estrogen application on wounds remain unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effects of topical estrogen application on wounds with standard treatment methods. Eight-week-old C57BL/6J female mice underwent OVX and received two full-thickness wounds four weeks later. Mice were divided into three groups: topical estradiol benzoate (EB) (0.75 mu g/g/day) wound treatment, subcutaneous estradiol (E2) pellets (0.05 mg, 21 days), and topical E2 (0.01 g/day) skin application. Wound healing was observed until day 14. Wound area ratios were significantly smaller in the topical EB wound treatment group than in the subcutaneous E2 pellet group on days 1-14 (p < 0.05) and topical E2 skin application group on days 1-9 (p < 0.05). Neutrophil and macrophage numbers were significantly smaller in the topical EB wound treatment group than in the subcutaneous E2 pellet and topical E2 skin application groups on day 7 (p < 0.05). Moreover, the number of new blood vessels and ratio of myofibroblasts were significantly larger in the topical EB wound treatment group than in the subcutaneous E2 pellet and topical E2 application skin groups on day 7 (p < 0.05). These results demonstrate that the application of estrogen to wounds reduced inflammatory responses and promoted angiogenesis and wound contraction more than the two other standard treatment methods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available