Transforming growth factor-β2 (TGF-β2) reverses the inhibitory effects of fibrin sealant on cutaneous wound repair in the pig

• Published in: Wound repair and regeneration Vol. 10; no. 4; pp. 252 - 258
• Main Authors: Petratos, Peter B., Felsen, Diane, Trierweiler, Grant, Pratt, Bruce, McPherson, John M., Poppas, Dix P.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Malden, USA Blackwell Science Inc 01-07-2002
• ISSN: 1067-1927; 1524-475X
• DOI: 10.1046/j.1524-475X.2002.10409.x

Tensile strength of 2‐cm, full‐thickness, surgically incised porcine skin wounds sealed with fibrin sealant was enhanced compared to conventionally sutured wounds at 6 hours postwounding, but was significantly reduced after 3 days. Supplementation of fibrin sealant with transforming growth factor‐β2 (TGF‐β2) reversed the inhibitory effects of fibrin sealant on tensile strength at 3 days, and enhanced tensile strength at 7 days compared to suture or fibrin sealant alone. By 14 days, the tensile strengths of all wounds were similar, although wounds treated with fibrin sealant supplemented with TGF‐β2 showed a small, but statistically significant, improvement in wound strength compared to wounds treated with fibrin sealant alone. Histological assessment at day 7 revealed significant remnants of fibrin sealant at the wound site following fibrin sealant treatment alone, while wounds treated with fibrin sealant supplemented with TGF‐β2 or suture exhibited fibroblast infiltration and extracellular matrix deposition. At day 7, TGF‐β was immunolocalized in the base and margins of only wounds treated with fibrin sealant supplemented with TGF‐β2. A significant increase in matrix metalloproteinase‐9 activity was found in fibrin sealant–treated wounds at day 7 as compared to sutured wounds. Addition of TGF‐β to the fibrin sealant suppressed the up‐regulation of matrix metalloproteinase‐9 in these wounds. These results suggest that fibrin sealant supplemented with TGF‐β may provide superior wound healing as compared to fibrin sealant alone. (WOUND REP REG 2002;10:252–258)