FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) / An Equine Wound Model to Study Effects of Bacterial Aggregat...
Advances in wound care2019; 8(10); 487-498; doi: 10.1089/wound.2018.0901

An Equine Wound Model to Study Effects of Bacterial Aggregates on Wound Healing.

Abstract: Objective: Relevant animal models to study effects of bacterial aggregates on wound healing are lacking. We aimed at establishing an equine wound model with bacterial aggregates to investigate the impact of bacterial inoculation on normal (thorax) and impaired (limb) wound healing. Approach: Wounds were created on three limbs and both thorax sides of six horses. Twelve out of 20 wounds per horse were inoculated with 104 Staphylococcus aureus and 105 Pseudomonas aeruginosa on day 4. Healing was monitored until day 27 by clinical assessment, including wound scoring, surface pH measurements, and digital photography for area determination. Biopsies were used for bacterial culture and for peptide nucleic acid fluorescence in situ hybridization to detect bacterial aggregates. Results: Inoculated limb wounds healed slower than noninoculated limb wounds from day 10 onward (p < 0.0001). Inoculated and noninoculated thorax wounds healed equally well and faster than limb wounds. The odds ratio of detecting bacterial aggregates in inoculated limb wounds was 7.1 (2.4-21.0, p = 0.0086) compared with noninoculated limb wounds and 36.2 (3.8-348, p = 0.0018) compared with thorax wounds. Innovation: This equine wound model with bacterial aggregates might be superior to other animal wound models, as both normal and impaired healing can be studied simultaneously. In this model, many aspects of wound healing, including novel treatments, may be studied. Conclusions: The impaired healing observed in inoculated limb wounds may be related to the persistent bacterial aggregates. Both in capability of clearing inoculated bacteria from the wounds and in healing pattern, thorax wounds were superior to limb wounds.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2019-08-21 PubMed ID: 31456906PubMed Central: PMC6709944DOI: 10.1089/wound.2018.0901Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The study presents a new equine wound model that enables researchers to observe the effects of bacterial aggregates on wound healing under both normal and impaired conditions. Notably, it was observed that wounds on the limbs healed slower when inoculated with bacteria, which might be attributed to persistent bacterial aggregates.

Creating the Model

  • The researchers aimed to create an equine wound model where the impact of bacterial inoculation on normal (thorax or chest area) and impaired (limb) wound healing could be studied.
  • Wounds were made on both thorax sides and on three limbs of six horses. Out of 20 wounds, 12 were inoculated with bacteria on the fourth day.

Observation and Assessment

  • Healing of the wounds was monitored till the 27th day. The observation included clinical assessment, wound scoring, measuring surface pH, and digital photography for determining the wound area.
  • Wound biopsies were conducted to culture bacteria and to detect bacterial aggregates using peptide nucleic acid fluorescence hybridization.

Findings of the Study

  • Inoculated wounds on the limbs healed slower than the non-inoculated wounds starting from the tenth day. On the other hand, both inoculated and non-inoculated thorax wounds healed relatively faster.
  • The likelihood of finding bacterial aggregates in inoculated limb wounds was 7.1 times higher compared to non-inoculated limb wounds, and 36.2 times higher compared to thorax wounds.

Significance of the Findings

  • These findings imply that the equine wound model might be superior to other animal models for studying wound healing as it allows simultaneous studies on both normal and impaired healing.
  • The results also suggest that the slowed healing observed in inoculated limb wounds was probably due to the presence of persistent bacterial aggregates. In comparison, thorax wounds exhibited superior healing patterns and ability to clear inoculated bacteria.

Cite This Article

APA
Jørgensen E, Bay L, Skovgaard LT, Bjarnsholt T, Jacobsen S. (2019). An Equine Wound Model to Study Effects of Bacterial Aggregates on Wound Healing. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle), 8(10), 487-498. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2018.0901

Publication

Advances in wound care
ISSN: 2162-1918
NlmUniqueID: 101590593
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 8
Issue: 10
Pages: 487-498

Researcher Affiliations

Jørgensen, Elin
  • Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Taastrup, Denmark.
Bay, Lene
  • Department of Immunology and Microbiology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen N, Denmark.
Skovgaard, Lene T
  • Section of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen K, Denmark.
Bjarnsholt, Thomas
  • Department of Immunology and Microbiology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen N, Denmark.
  • Department of Clinical Microbiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Jacobsen, Stine
  • Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Taastrup, Denmark.

References

This article includes 50 references
  1. James GA, Swogger E, Wolcott R. Biofilms in chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen 2008;16:37–44.
    pubmed: 18086294
  2. Bjarnsholt T, Kirketerp-Møller K, Jensen PØ. Why chronic wounds will not heal: a novel hypothesis. Wound Repair Reg 2008;16:2–10.
    pubmed: 18211573
  3. Schultz G, Bjarnsholt T, James GA. Consensus guidelines for the identification and treatment of biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds. Wound Repair Regen 2017;25:744–757.
    pubmed: 28960634
  4. Seth AK, Geringer MR, Hong SJ, Leung KP, Mustoe TA, Galiano RD. In vivo modeling of biofilm-infected wounds: a review. J Surg Res 2012;178:330–338.
    pubmed: 22835953
  5. Jorgensen E, Lazzarini G, Pirone A, Jacobsen S, Miragliotta V. Normal microscopic anatomy of equine body and limb skin: a morphological and immunohistochemical study. Ann Anat 2018;218:205–212.
    pubmed: 29730469
  6. Davidson JM. Animal models for wound repair. Arch Dermatol Res 1998;290:S1–S11.
    pubmed: 9710378
  7. Sardari K, Kazemi H, Emami M, Movasaghi A, Goli A. Role of collagen cross-linking on equine wound contraction and healing. Comp Clin Pathol 2009;18:239–247.
  8. Wilmink JM, Stolk PWT, Van Weeren PR, Barneveld A. Differences in second-intention wound healing between horses and ponies: macroscopic aspects. Equine Vet J 1999;31:53–60.
    pubmed: 9952330
  9. Gordillo GM, Bernatchez SF, Diegelmann R. Preclinical Models of Wound Healing: is Man the Model? Proceedings of the Wound Healing Society Symposium. Adv Wound Care 2013;2:1–4.
    pmc: PMC3840478pubmed: 24527316
  10. Theoret CL, Wilmink JM. Aberrant wound healing in the horse: naturally occurring conditions reminiscent of those observed in man. Wound Repair Regen 2013;21:365–371.
    pubmed: 23441750
  11. Theoret C. Physiology of wound healing. 2017:1–13.
  12. Freeman K, Woods E, Welsby S, Percival SL, Cochrane CA. Biofilm evidence and the microbial diversity of horse wounds. Can J Microbiol 2009;55:197–202.
    pubmed: 19295652
  13. Westgate SJ, Percival SL, Knottenbelt DC, Clegg PD, Cochrane CA. Microbiology of equine wounds and evidence of bacterial biofilms. Vet Microbiol 2011;150:152–159.
    pubmed: 21273008
  14. Jorgensen E, Bay L, Bjarnsholt T, Bundgaard L, Sorensen MA, Jacobsen S. The occurrence of biofilm in an equine experimental wound model of healing by secondary intention. Vet Microbiol 2017;204:90–95.
    pubmed: 28532812
  15. Van Hecke LL, Hermans K, Haspeslagh M. A quantitative swab is a good non-invasive alternative to a quantitative biopsy for quantifying bacterial load in wounds healing by second intention in horses. Vet J 2017;225:63–68.
    pubmed: 28720301
  16. Sørensen MA, Pedersen LJ, Bundgaard L, Toft N, Jacobsen S. Regional disturbances in metabolism and blood flow in equine limb wounds healing with formation of exuberant granulation tissue. Wound Repair Regen 2014;22:647–653.
    pubmed: 24935817
  17. Bundgaard L, Bendixen E, Sorensen MA. A selected reaction monitoring-based analysis of acute phase proteins in interstitial fluids from experimental equine wounds healing by secondary intention. Wound Repair Regen 2016;24:525–532.
    pubmed: 26899182
  18. Wilmink JM, Van Weeren PR, Stolk PWT, Van Mil FN, Barneveld A. Differences in second-intention wound healing between horses and ponies: histological aspects. Equine Vet J 1999;31:61–67.
    pubmed: 9952331
  19. Mustoe TA, O'Shaughnessy K, Kloeters O. Chronic wound pathogenesis and current treatment strategies: a unifying hypothesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117:35S–41S.
    pubmed: 16799373
  20. Nouvong A, Ambrus AM, Zhang ER, Hultman L, Coller HA. Reactive oxygen species and bacterial biofilms in diabetic wound healing. Physiol Genomics 2016;48:889–896.
    pmc: PMC5206388pubmed: 27764766
  21. Kirketerp-Moller K, Jensen PO, Fazli M. Distribution, organization, and ecology of bacteria in chronic wounds. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:2717–2722.
    pmc: PMC2519454pubmed: 18508940
  22. Wolcott RD, Hanson JD, Rees EJ. Analysis of the chronic wound microbiota of 2,963 patients by 16S rDNA pyrosequencing. Wound Repair Regen 2016;24:163–174.
    pubmed: 26463872
  23. Fazli M, Bjarnsholt T, Kirketerp-Moller K. Nonrandom distribution of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in chronic wounds. J Clin Microbiol 2009;47:4084–4089.
    pmc: PMC2786634pubmed: 19812273
  24. Hanson RR. Complications of Equine Wound Management and Dermatologic Surgery. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2008;24:663–696.
    pubmed: 19203707
  25. Gleerup KB, Lindegaard C. Recognition and quantification of pain in horses: a tutorial review. Equine Vet Educ 2016;28:47–57.
  26. nAmerican Association of Equine Practitioners. Lameness Exams: Evaluating the Lame Horse. www.aaep.org/horsehealth/lameness-exams-evaluating-lame-horse (last accessed November12, 2018)
  27. van Gennip M, Christensen LD, Alhede M. Interactions between polymorphonuclear leukocytes and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms on silicone implants in vivo. Infect Immun 2012;80:2601–2607.
    pmc: PMC3434577pubmed: 22585963
  28. Gethin GT, Cowman S, Conroy RM. The impact of Manuka honey dressings on the surface pH of chronic wounds. Int Wound J 2008;5:185–194.
    pmc: PMC7951475pubmed: 18494624
  29. Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods 2012;9:676–682.
    pmc: PMC3855844pubmed: 22743772
  30. Fazli M, Bjarnsholt T, Hoiby N, Givskov M, Tolker-Nielsen T. PNA-based fluorescence in situ hybridization for identification of bacteria in clinical samples. Methods Mol Biol 2014;1211:261–271.
    pubmed: 25218392
  31. Bjarnsholt T, Alhede M, Alhede M. The in vivo biofilm. Trends Microbiol 2013;21:466–474.
    pubmed: 23827084
  32. Wong VW, Sorkin M, Glotzbach JP, Longaker MT, Gurtner GC. Surgical approaches to create murine models of human wound healing. J Biomed Biotech 2011;2011:969618.
    pmc: PMC2995912pubmed: 21151647
  33. Gurjala AN, Geringer MR, Seth AK. Development of a novel, highly quantitative in vivo model for the study of biofilm-impaired cutaneous wound healing. Wound Repair Regen 2011;19:400–410.
    pubmed: 21518094
  34. Ansell DM, Campbell L, Thomason HA, Brass A, Hardman MJ. A statistical analysis of murine incisional and excisional acute wound models. Wound Repair Regen 2014;22:281–287.
    pmc: PMC4309476pubmed: 24635179
  35. Bundgaard L, Sorensen MA, Nilsson T, Salling E, Jacobsen S. Evaluation of Systemic and Local Inflammatory Parameters and Manifestations of Pain in an Equine Experimental Wound Model. J Equine Vet Sci 2018;68:81–87.
    pubmed: 31256894
  36. Celeste CJ, Deschene K, Riley CB, Theoret CL. Regional differences in wound oxygenation during normal healing in an equine model of cutaneous fibroproliferative disorder. Wound Repair Regen 2011;19:89–97.
    pubmed: 20955347
  37. Gottrup F. Oxygen, wound healing and the development of infection. Present status. Eur J Surg 2002;168:260–263.
    pubmed: 12375606
  38. Percival SL, McCarty S, Hunt JA, Woods EJ. The effects of pH on wound healing, biofilms, and antimicrobial efficacy. Wound Repair Regen 2014;22:174–186.
    pubmed: 24611980
  39. Alhede M, Bjarnsholt T, Jensen PO. Pseudomonas aeruginosa recognizes and responds aggressively to the presence of polymorphonuclear leukocytes. Microbiol 2009;155:3500–3508.
    pubmed: 19643762
  40. Zhao G, Usui ML, Lippman SI. Biofilms and Inflammation in Chronic Wounds. Adv Wound Care 2013;2:389–399.
    pmc: PMC3763221pubmed: 24527355
  41. Yang Q, Phillips PL, Sampson EM. Development of a novel ex vivo porcine skin explant model for the assessment of mature bacterial biofilms. Wound Repair Regen 2013;21:704–714.
    pubmed: 23927831
  42. Wolcott RD, Rumbaugh KP, James G. Biofilm maturity studies indicate sharp debridement opens a timedependent therapeutic window. J Wound Care 2010;19:320–328.
    pubmed: 20852503
  43. Fierheller M, Sibbald RG. A clinical investigation into the relationship between increased periwound skin temperature and local wound infection in patients with chronic leg ulcers. Adv Skin Wound Care 2010;23:369–379.
    pubmed: 20631603
  44. Thomsen TR, Aasholm MS, Rudkjøbing VB. The bacteriology of chronic venous leg ulcer examined by culture-independent molecular methods. Wound Repair Regen 2010;18:38–49.
    pubmed: 20082680
  45. Hoiby N, Bjarnsholt T, Moser C. ESCMID guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of biofilm infections 2014. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015;21:S1–S25.
    pubmed: 25596784
  46. Burmølle M, Thomsen TR, Fazli M. Biofilms in chronic infections–a matter of opportunity–monospecies biofilms in multispecies infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 2010;59:324–336.
    pubmed: 20602635
  47. Rhoads DD, Wolcott RD, Sun Y, Dowd SE. Comparison of culture and molecular identification of bacteria in chronic wounds. Int J Mol Sci 2012;13:2535–2550.
    pmc: PMC3317672pubmed: 22489109
  48. Lipsky BA, Aragon-Sanchez J, Diggle M. IWGDF guidance on the diagnosis and management of foot infections in persons with diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2016;32:45–74.
    pubmed: 26386266
  49. Gottrup F, Apelqvist J, Bjarnsholt T. EWMA document: antimicrobials and non-healing wounds. Evidence, controversies and suggestions. J Wound Care 2013;22:S1–S89.
    pubmed: 24645204
  50. Zhao G, Hochwalt PC, Usui ML. Delayed wound healing in diabetic (db/db) mice with Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm challenge: a model for the study of chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen 2010;18:467–477.
    pmc: PMC2939909pubmed: 20731798

Citations

This article has been cited 5 times.
  1. Repciuc CC, Oros NV, Mureșan ȘMC, Sevastre B, Joaquim JGF, Oana LI. Efficacy of Ozone Bagging Therapy in Equine Chronic Distal Limb Wounds: Clinical Evaluation of Eight Cases. Vet Sci 2025 Dec 23;13(1).
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci13010016pubmed: 41600672google scholar: lookup
  2. Van de Walle GR, Harman RM. Contributions of large and agricultural animal models to immunology. J Immunol 2025 Oct 1;214(10):2494-2503.
    doi: 10.1093/jimmun/vkaf119pubmed: 41169229google scholar: lookup
  3. Cárdenas-Calderón C, Veloso-Giménez V, González T, Wozniak A, García P, Martín SS, Varas JF, Carrasco-Wong I, Vera M, Egaña JT. Development of an implantable three-dimensional model of a functional pathogenic multispecies biofilm to study infected wounds. Sci Rep 2022 Dec 17;12(1):21846.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-25569-5pubmed: 36528648google scholar: lookup
  4. Jørgensen E, Bjarnsholt T, Jacobsen S. Biofilm and Equine Limb Wounds. Animals (Basel) 2021 Sep 27;11(10).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11102825pubmed: 34679846google scholar: lookup
  5. Isola M, Piccinotti C, Magro M, Fasolato L, Vianello F, Menandro ML, Memarian P, Rossi M, Falomo ME. Colloidal Iron Oxide Formulation for Equine Hoof Disinfection. Animals (Basel) 2021 Mar 10;11(3).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11030766pubmed: 33801981google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.