Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2016 Sep 7;6:32670. doi: 10.1038/srep32670

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

Copyright © 2016, The Author(s)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

PMC Copyright notice

(a) Representative H&E cross-section of a wound from the no-treatment group. The black arrow heads mark out the edges of the original excision sites, upon which the wound gap remaining (red arrow heads) was normalized against to derive the % re-epithelialization achieved. (b) The scoring criteria used in this semi-quantitative scale for grading skin samples. (c–f) Surgery was performed over four batches of animals. Skin sections were obtained on day 14 and scored based on the quality of re-epithelialization. (g) The overall scores of all treatment groups (n = 7–11). Wounds treated with peptide hydrogel infused with completed medium (average group score: 4.3) received higher and more consistent histological scores than wounds treated with the DuoDerm gel positive control (average: 3.3), no-treatment negative control (average: 2.8), or peptide gels infused with medium alone (average: 2.8) or water (average: 2.9).