Cited by 542Wound Healing and TreatmentsDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

Clinical challenges of chronic wounds: searching for an optimal animal model to recapitulate their complexity

Open access
Nunan, Robert, Harding, Keith G., Martin, Paul·2014·Disease Models & Mechanisms

Abstract

The efficient healing of a skin wound is something that most of us take for granted but is essential for surviving day-to-day knocks and cuts, and is absolutely relied on clinically whenever a patient receives surgical intervention. However, the management of a chronic wound – defined as a barrier defect that has not healed in 3 months – has become a major therapeutic challenge throughout the Western world, and it is a problem that will only escalate with the increasing incidence of conditions that impede wound healing, such as diabetes, obesity and vascular disorders. Despite being clinically and molecularly heterogeneous, all chronic wounds are generally assigned to one of three major clinical categories: leg ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers or pressure ulcers. Although we have gleaned much knowledge about the fundamental cellular and molecular mechanisms that underpin healthy, acute wound healing from various animal models, we have learned much less about chronic wound repair pathology from these models. This might largely be because the animal models being used in this field of research have failed to recapitulate the clinical features of chronic wounds. In this Clinical Puzzle article, we discuss the clinical complexity of chronic wounds and describe the best currently available models for investigating chronic wound pathology. We also assess how such models could be optimised to become more useful tools for uncovering pathological mechanisms and potential therapeutic treatments.

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 · 10.1242/dmm.016782

Cites

71 of 71 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?

  • It is unlikely that animal models that perfectly recapitulate the complex network of pathological factors in chronic human wounds will be developed in the near future.

    “Furthermore, based on current knowledge, it is unlikely that animal models that perfectly recapitulate the complex network of pathological factors in chronic human wounds will be developed in the near future (Fig. 3) (20).”
  • Many mouse models of pathological wound healing accurately mirror some systemic causes of impaired healing, such as diabetes in db/db mice, but seldom account for other important associations such as age and wound microbial load.

    “Also important to note is that many models of pathological wound healing in mice, although accurately mirroring some of the systemic causes of impaired healing—for example, the diabetic (db/db) mouse—seldom make allowance for other important associations, such as age and wound microbial load.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nunan, R., Harding, K. G., & Martin, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Nunan, Robert
Venue
Disease Models & Mechanisms
Published
2014-11-01
Volume
7
Issue
11
Pages
1205-1213
ISSN
  • 1754-8403 (ISSN-L)
  • 1754-8411
OpenAlex
W2129322966
Cited by
542
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 53 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
FWCI
21.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Disease Models & Mechanisms (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (097791)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Keywords
chronic wounds, animal models, wound healing, diabetic foot ulcer, leg ulcers, pressure ulcers, model validation, diabetic wound healing, skin barrier dysfunction
MeSH terms
Animals, Chronic Disease, Wound Healing, Wounds and Injuries, Models, Animal

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