Skip to main content
. 2024 Aug 23;7(11):e202302249. doi: 10.26508/lsa.202302249

Figure 1. HES and the purified TGF-β mimic (TGM), accelerates wound closure in both a 2-D scratch test and murine dorsal wounds.

Figure 1.

(A, B) A 2-D in vitro scratch test wound model was generated with a 50:50 co-culture of L929 fibroblast and HaCaT keratinocytes to examine the wound closure and migration with the application of HES. (A) Representative images, produced from the analysis through the online program, Tscratch, identify the area of open wounds for quantitation (filled-in areas). (B) The area of wound remaining open, calculated by Tscratch, was used to quantify the rate of wound closure for different concentrations of HES (0.08–1 μg/ml) compared with media alone from 0 to 24 h. The percentage of wound closure at each time point is compared with the percentage open at hour 0 (**P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001; n = 5 independent wells per condition). (C) 5 mm full-thickness excisional wounds were generated on the dorsal skin of C57BL/6 mice. Wounds were treated with PBS vehicle control or TGM (500 ng) and covered with Tegaderm for the duration of the study. Wound size analysis (ImageJ) was performed on the gross images obtained at each time point during the course of treatment. Treatments were given daily, whereas the dressing was changed every other day. Wound closure rates with either a daily dose of topical 500 ng TGM or PBS vehicle control over 12 d were quantified as the percentage of wound closure at each time point compared with the percentage open at day 0. Results from two or more independent determinations demonstrated similar results (**P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001; five independent wounds from each treatment were measured through blinded analysis on ImageJ). (D) Representative wound images of mice treated topically with PBS vehicle control or TGM (500 ng) on days 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 demonstrate the rate of wound closure over the course of treatment. (B, C) Statistical analysis was performed using a two-way ANOVA test (B, C) with Tukey’s multiple comparisons for comparison between all treatment groups at each timepoint. Error bars represent mean ± SEM.