Accelerated Wound Healing with Topical Application of Complement C5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delayed-healing traumatic, surgical, and chronic wounds can be detrimental to patients and the health care system. The authors set out to investigate the effects of complement C5, a naturally occurring chemotactic cytokine, on wounds. METHODS: The authors examined the effects of complement C5 on the rat paired skin incision model. Each rat served as its own control where topical collagen was applied to one incision and 100 nM of C5 in collagen vehicle was applied to the other incision. Rats were killed on days 3 (n = 6), 7 (n = 6), and 28 (n = 5) after wounding. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant, 65 percent increase in maximum wound breaking strength with the topical application of C5 at day 3 (p < 0.01). The increase persisted to 14 percent at 7 days after wounding (p < 0.05). When compared with the sham group, the C5-treated wound strength increased by 83 percent at day 3 and 64 percent at day 7. There was no change in breaking strength at 28 days. Western blot analysis demonstrated a significant increase in collagen and fibronectin content in the C5-treated wounds. CONCLUSIONS: Topical application of C5 to skin wounds significantly increases wound healing maximum breaking strength as early as 3 days and up to 7 days after wounding. C5 accelerated wound healing by at least 4 days in the first week of wounding. This was correlated with an increase in vascular permeability, increased inflammatory cell recruitment, subsequent fibroblast migration, and increased collagen deposition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".