Table 1.
Summary of the wound closure determined by reduction in wound area (%) and the percent re-epithelialization (%) of the wound bed for the mice across all treatment groups over the treatment duration. All values are expressed as mean ± SD.
Fig 1.
Effect of treatment on wound repair and regeneration.
(A) Percent closure of the wound eight days post infection. Calculations were completed using wound area. Data expressed as mean ± SD; one-way ANOVA, p = 0.004. (B) Percent re-epithelialization of the wound eight days post infection. Data expressed as mean ± SD; one-way ANOVA, p < 0.001. For both A and B, dots in each bar indicate values for individual mice. (C-F) H&E-stained cross-sections of wound tissue. Arrows mark the wound edge from left to right for each image with (C) No Treatment, (D) CED, (E) OSU ED-UnP, and (F) OSU ED-P. Scale bar = 100 μm. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Fig 2.
IVIS imaging and endpoint CFU show clearance of PAO1-Xen41 infection.
(A) IVIS luminescence quantification (AU) for mice 8 days post infection showing the relative luminescence of the PA-Xen41. Data expressed as mean ± SD; one-way ANOVA, p < 0.001. (B) IVIS images from representative infected wounds in mice for each group. IVIS images of the wound eight days post-infection showing the bioluminescence of the PA-Xen41. In IVIS images, red indicates high bacterial luminescence and blue indicates lower bacterial luminescence. Accompanying wound images show a yellow hue in the no treatment wound group due to significant bacterial load. The OSU ED-UnP has a dark residue in the wound left behind from the Ag/AgCl ink. (C) Bacterial burden (CFU/g) of the wound eight days post-infection taken from the excised tissue of sacrificed mice. Data expressed as mean ± SD; one-way ANOVA, p = 0.006. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Fig 3.
Local immune response of the mice.
(A) Percent count of CD3 + cells counted by flow cytometry of excised wound tissue. Data expressed as mean ± SD; one-way ANOVA, p = 0.006. (B) Percent count of CD11b+ cells counted during flowcytometry of excised skin. Data expressed as mean ± SD; one-way ANOVA P < 0.001. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Fig 4.
Device layout and experimental timeline of the evaluation of the OSU ED on infected wounds in mice.
(A) OSU ED attached to the back of a mouse. The mouse shown in the image is from the pilot study and is shown for demonstration purposes with results here reported using hairless mice. (B) Schematic of the 1 cm x 2 cm OSU ED with a 1.5 V battery and a 15 kΩ ballast to limit current flow. (C) Schematic depicting timeline with the following events noted: punch biopsy to initiating wounding, infection of wound with PAO1-Xen41, dressing applications, and changes to dressings.