Premium
Rapamycin reduces burn wound progression by enhancing autophagy in deep second‐degree burn in rats
Author(s) -
Xiao Mengjing,
Li Ligen,
Hu Quan,
Ma Li,
Liu Lingying,
Chu Wanli,
Zhang Haijun
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
wound repair and regeneration
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.847
H-Index - 109
eISSN - 1524-475X
pISSN - 1067-1927
DOI - 10.1111/wrr.12090
Subject(s) - autophagy , wound healing , inflammation , apoptosis , medicine , myeloperoxidase , burn wound , burn injury , tunel assay , acetylcysteine , perfusion , pharmacology , anesthesia , chemistry , surgery , biochemistry , antioxidant
Burn wound progression is caused by many mechanisms including local tissue hypoperfusion, prolonged inflammation, free radical damage, apoptosis, and necrosis in burn wounds. Autophagy, a homeostatic process by which cells break down their own components, was found to protect against ischemic injury, inflammatory diseases, and apoptosis in some cases. We tested whether rapamycin, an autophagy inducer, could ameliorate burn wound progression and promote wound healing through autophagy enhancement. Using a previously described deep second‐degree burn model, we first tested the effects of rapamycin on autophagic response in burn wound tissue. Autophagy levels in wound tissue of treated rats were increased as compared with controls. Furthermore, we found that laser D oppler flowmetry values and N a/ K ‐ ATP ase activities were markedly higher in the treated wounds. The content of interleukin‐8, methane dicarboxylic aldehyde, and myeloperoxidase activity in the wounds of treated rats were much lower than in controls. The apoptotic rates in treated wounds were much lower than controls as determined by terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase mediated nick end labeling assay. Finally, histomorphological analysis showed that burn wound progression in the treatment group was ameliorated. The time to wound reepithelialization was shorter in the treated wounds than controls 22.5 ± 1.4 days vs. 24.8 ± 1.3 days (mean ± standard deviation, p < 0.01).