Cited by 64Wound Healing and TreatmentsCollagen: Extraction and CharacterizationTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

Cutaneous wound healing after treatment with plant-derived human recombinant collagen flowable gel

Open access
Shilo, Shani, Roth, Sigal, Amzel, Tal, Harel-Adar, Tamar, Tamir, Eran, Grynspan, Frida, Shoseyov, Oded·2013·Tissue Engineering Part A

Abstract

Chronic wounds, particularly diabetic ulcers, represent a main public health concern with significant costs. Ulcers often harbor an additional obstacle in the form of tunneled or undermined wounds, requiring treatments that can reach the entire wound tunnel, because bioengineered grafts are typically available only in a sheet form. While collagen is considered a suitable biodegradable scaffold material, it is usually extracted from animal and human cadaveric sources, and accompanied by potential allergic and infectious risks. The purpose of this study was to test the performance of a flowable gel made of human recombinant type I collagen (rhCollagen) produced in transgenic tobacco plants, indicated for the treatment of acute, chronic, and tunneled wounds. The performance of the rhCollagen flowable gel was tested in an acute full-thickness cutaneous wound-healing rat model and compared to saline treatment and two commercial flowable gel control products made of bovine collagen and cadaver human skin collagen. When compared to the three control groups, the rhCollagen-based gel accelerated wound closure and triggered a significant jumpstart to the healing process, accompanied by enhanced re-epithelialization. In a cutaneous full-thickness wound pig model, the rhCollagen-based flowable gel induced accelerated wound healing compared to a commercial product made of bovine tendon collagen. By day 21 post-treatment, 95% wound closure was observed with the rhCollagen product compared to 68% closure in wounds treated with the reference product. Moreover, rhCollagen treatment induced an early angiogenic response and induced a significantly lower inflammatory response than in the control group. In summary, rhCollagen flowable gel proved to be efficacious in animal wound models and is expected to be capable of reducing the healing time of human wounds.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/ten.tea.2012.0345

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Plant-derived rhCollagen has shown no antigenic or immunogenic responses in human CD4+ T cells, in contrast to bovine collagen, which is known to trigger immune reactions.

    “Notably, plant-derived rhCollagen has shown no antigenic or immunogenic responses in human CD4+ T cells, in contrast to bovine collagen, which is known to trigger immune reactions [40].”

    From Biomaterials in Postoperative Adhesion Barriers and Uterine Tissue Engineering (2025) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Introduction says animal-derived collagen can provoke immune responses, and the Discussion reports less inflammation with rhCollagen than with bovine collagen in pig wounds. The paper does not report testing human CD4+ T cells or establish that rhCollagen produces no antigenic or immunogenic response in those cells. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [3]3. Chow, I., Lemos, E.V., and Einarson, T.R. Management and prevention of diabetic foot ulcers and infections: a health economic review. Pharmacoeconomics 26, 1019, 2008.
  2. [9]9. Reddy, M., Gill, S.S., Kalkar, S.R., Wu, W., Anderson, P.J., and Rochon, P.A. Treatment of pressure ulcers: a systematic review. JAMA 300, 2647, 2008.
  3. [14]14. Purna, S.K., and Babu, M. Collagen based dressings-a review. Burns 26, 54, 2000.

Authors
Shilo, S., Roth, S., Amzel, T., Harel-Adar, T., Tamir, E., Grynspan, F., & Shoseyov, O.
Affiliations
  • CollPlant Ltd., Ness-Ziona, Israel.
  • Maccabi Healthcare Services (IL)
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Corresponding author
Shilo, Shani
Venue
Tissue Engineering Part A
Published
2013-07
Volume
19
Issue
13-14
Pages
1519-1526
ISSN
  • 1937-3341 (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-335X
OpenAlex
W2032307986
Cited by
64
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3
FWCI
4.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Tissue Engineering Part A (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Collagen: Extraction and Characterization
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Keywords
skin wound healing, diabetic ulcers, re-epithelialization, angiogenesis, inflammation, bovine collagen, biodegradable scaffolds, wound dressings
MeSH terms
Animals, Cattle, Collagen, Humans, Plants, Recombinant Proteins, Skin, Swine, Wound Healing, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review