The DOI matches its Crossref record.
db/db mice exhibit severe wound‐healing impairments compared with other murine diabetic strains in a silicone‐splinted excisional wound model
Open accessAbstract
The pathophysiology of diabetic wound healing and the identification of new agents to improve clinical outcomes continue to be areas of intense research. There currently exist more than 10 different murine models of diabetes. The degree to which wound healing is impaired in these different mouse models has never been directly compared. We determined whether differences in wound impairment exist between diabetic models in order to elucidate which model would be the best to evaluate new treatment strategies. Three well‐accepted mouse models of diabetes were used in this study: db/db, Akita, and streptozocin (STZ)‐induced C57BL/6J. Using an excisional model of wound healing, we demonstrated that db/db mice exhibit severe impairments in wound healing compared with STZ and Akita mice. Excisional wounds in db/db mice show a statistically significant delay in wound closure, decreased granulation tissue formation, decreased wound bed vascularity, and markedly diminished proliferation compared with STZ, Akita, and control mice. There was no difference in the rate of epithelialization of the full‐thickness wounds between the diabetic or control mice. Our results suggest that splinted db/db mice may be the most appropriate model for studying diabetic wound‐healing interventions as they demonstrate the most significant impairment in wound healing. This study utilized a novel model of wound healing developed in our laboratory that stents wounds open using silicone splints to minimize the effects of wound contraction. As such, it was not possible to directly compare the results of this study with other studies that did not use this wound model.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Keloids and Hypertrophic Scars: Pathophysiology, Classification, and Treatment
Berman, B., Maderal, A., & Raphael, B. (2017) · Dermatologic Surgery · doi:10.1097/dss.0000000000000819 · Cited by 687
Guan, Y., Niu, H., Liu, Z., Dang, Y., Shen, J., Zayed, M., Ma, L., & Guan, J. (2021) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abj0153 · Cited by 631
Nunan, R., Harding, K. G., & Martin, P. (2014) · Disease Models & Mechanisms · doi:10.1242/dmm.016782 · Cited by 542
Stabilization of HIF-1α is critical to improve wound healing in diabetic mice
Botusan, I. R., Sunkari, V. G., Savu, O., Catrina, A. I., Grünler, J., Lindberg, S., Pereira, T., Ylä-Herttuala, S., Poellinger, L., Brismar, K., et al. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0805230105 · Cited by 533
Surgical Approaches to Create Murine Models of Human Wound Healing
Wong, V. W., Sorkin, M., Glotzbach, J. P., Longaker, M. T., & Gurtner, G. C. (2011) · BioMed Research International · doi:10.1155/2011/969618 · Cited by 419
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Michaels, J., Churgin, S. S., Blechman, K. M., Greives, M. R., Aarabi, S., Galiano, R. D., & Gurtner, G. C.
- Venue
- Wound Repair and Regeneration
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-09
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 665-670
- ISSN
- 1067-1927 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-475X
- OpenAlex
- W2116120286
- Cited by
- 227
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: db/db mice exhibit severe wound‐healing impairments compared with other murine diabetic strains in a silicone‐splinted excisional wound model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1524-475x.2007.00273.x
- The paper
- Michaels, J., Churgin, S. S., Blechman, K. M., Greives, M. R., Aarabi, S., Galiano, R. D., & Gurtner, G. C. (2007). db/db mice exhibit severe wound‐healing impairments compared with other murine diabetic strains in a silicone‐splinted excisional wound model. Wound Repair and Regeneration. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475x.2007.00273.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.