4.6 Article

Electrospun Poly(L-Lactide) Fiber with Ginsenoside Rg3 for Inhibiting Scar Hyperplasia of Skin

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068771

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51003058]
  2. Program for SMC-Young Scholar in Shanghai Jiao Tong University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypertrophic scarring (HS) has been considered as a great concern for patients and a challenging problem for clinicians as it can be cosmetically disfiguring and functionally debilitating. In this study, Ginsenoside Rg3/Poly(l-lactide) (G-Rg3/PLLA) electrospun fibrous scaffolds covering on the full-thickness skin excisions location was designed to suppress the hypertrophic scar formation in vivo. SEM and XRD results indicated that the crystal G-Rg3 carried in PLLA electrospun fibers was in amorphous state, which facilitates the solubility of G-Rg3 in the PLLA electrospun fibrous scaffolds, and solubility of G-Rg3 in PBS is increased from 3.2 mu g/ml for pure G-Rg3 powders to 19.4 mu g/ml for incorporated in PLLA-10% fibers. The released G-Rg3 content in the physiological medium could be further altered from 324 to 3445 mu g in a 40-day release period by adjusting the G-Rg3 incorporation amount in PLLA electrospun fibers. In vitro results demonstrated that electrospun GRg3/PLLA fibrous scaffold could significantly inhibit fibroblast cell growth and proliferation. In vivo results confirmed that the G-Rg3/PLLA electrospun fibrous scaffold showed significant improvements in terms of dermis layer thickness, fibroblast proliferation, collagen fibers and microvessels, revealing that the incorporation of the G-Rg3 in the fibers prevented the HS formation. The above results demonstrate the potential use of G-Rg3/PLLA electrospun fibrous scaffolds to rapidly minimize fibroblast growth and restore the structural and functional properties of wounded skin for patients with deep trauma, severe burn injury, and surgical incision.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据