Fig 1.
(A) Wounds with a 4 mm-diameter were inflicted, and healing was recorded by image capture. Scale bar, 5 mm. (B) Wound area ratios in relation to initial area on day 0 are depicted as line graphs for each day. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 6–10 wounds per groups, ANOVA, Tukey–Kramer **p<0.01 vs. aged-E group; ††p<0.01 vs. aged-vehicle group and ¶¶p<0.01 vs. young group.
Fig 2.
Re-epithelialization and wound contraction.
Box graphs show (A) ratio of re-epithelialization (%) and (C) ratio of myofibroblasts (%). (B) HE staining (scale bar = 200 μm) and (D) myofibroblasts stained with anti-α-SMA antibody (scale bar = 200 μm) were observed in granulation tissue on day 14. Values are expressed as mean + SEM, n = 4–8 wounds for each group, ANOVA, Tukey–Kramer *p<0.05 and **p<0.01: vs. aged-E group; ¶p<0.05 and ¶¶p<0.01 vs. young group.
Fig 3.
Neutrophils, macrophages, and relative Tnf-a and Il-6 expression.
Box graphs show (A) number of neutrophils per mm2 and (C) number of macrophages per mm2. (B) Neutrophils (arrows) stained with anti-neutrophil antibody (scale bar = 20 μm) and (D) macrophages (arrows) stained with anti-Mac-3 antibody (scale bar = 20 μm) were observed in wound tissue on day 7. Box graphs show (E) relative Tnf-a expression and (F) relative Il-6 expression. Values are expressed as mean + SEM, n = 5–6 wounds for each group (A−D) and n = 3 wounds for each group (E and F), ANOVA, Tukey–Kramer *p<0.05 and **p<0.01 vs. aged-E group; ††p<0.01 vs. aged-vehicle group; ¶p<0.05 vs. young group.