METHODS: The effective dose of Ecklonia cava phlorotannins (ECP) for hyperglycaemic wound healing was determined prior to phlorotannin nanofibre fabrication using polyvinyl-alcohol (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), and ECP. Vapour glutaraldehyde was used for crosslinking of the PVA/PVP nanofibres. The phlorotannin nanofibres were characterised, and their safety and cytocompatibility were validated. Next, the wound healing effect of phlorotannin nanofibres was determined with 2D wound scratch assay, whereas immunofluorescence staining of Collagen-I (Col-I) and Cytokeratin-14 (CK-14) was performed in human dermal fibroblasts (HDF) and human epidermal keratinocytes (HEK), respectively.
RESULTS: Our results demonstrated that 0.01 μg/mL ECP significantly improved hyperglycaemic wound healing without compromising cell viability and proliferation. Among all nanofibres, PVA/PVP/0.01 wt% ECP nanofibres exhibited the best hyperglycaemic wound healing effect. They displayed a diameter of 334.7 ± 10.1 nm, a porosity of 40.7 ± 3.3%, and a WVTR of 1718.1 ± 32.3 g/m2/day. Besides, the FTIR spectra and phlorotannin release profile validated the successful vapour glutaraldehyde crosslinking and ECP incorporation. We also demonstrated the potential of phlorotannin nanofibres as a non-cytotoxic wound dressing as they support the viability and proliferation of both HDF and HEK. Furthermore, phlorotannin nanofibres significantly ameliorated the impaired hyperglycaemic wound healing and restored the hyperglycaemic-induced Col-I reduction in HDF.
CONCLUSION: Taken together, our findings show that phlorotannin nanofibres have the potential to be used as a diabetic wound dressing.
Methods: A total of 150 CKD patients and 64 non-CKD patients were enrolled. The type 2 diabetic patients in the recruited study participants were categorised based on their glycaemic control; poor glycaemic control (GC) with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) > 7% and good GC with HbA1c ≤ 7%. The levels or activities of GPx, SOD and sRAGE in plasma were measured. These biochemical parameters were analysed using Mann-WhitneyUtest and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Results: The activities of GPx and SOD as well as plasma level of sRAGE were not significantly different among the CKD patients with varying glycaemic control status. Irrespective of diabetes status and glycaemic control status, CKD patients also exhibited lower plasma SOD activities compared with non-CKD patients. Among the non-CKD patients, SOD activities were significantly higher in diabetic patients with good GC than diabetic patients with poor GC. Two-way ANOVA revealed that both CKD status and glycaemic control had an interaction effect on SOD activities in diabetic subjects with and without CKD. Follow-up analysis showed that SOD activities were significantly higher in non-CKD patients with good GC. There were no overall significant differences in GPx activities among the study participants. Furthermore, plasma sRAGE levels were higher in diabetic patients with CKD than those without CKD, regardless of glycaemic control status. There were no interaction effects between CKD status and glycaemic control status on GPx and sRAGE. Instead, CKD status showed significant main effects on these parameters, indicating significant differences between diabetic subjects with CKD and diabetic subjects without CKD.
Conclusion: Glycaemic control did not quantitatively alter GPx, SOD and sRAGE in diabetic CKD patients. Despite the advantages of good glycaemic control, a well-controlled diabetes in CKD did not modulate the activities of enzymatic antioxidants and sRAGE levels, therefore may not be the primary mechanism to handle oxidative stress.