Regenerative Potential of Various Plant‐Derived Exosome Injections in Laser‐Induced Skin Wound Healing in a Rabbit Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thermal injuries caused by laser incisions in soft tissue can delay wound healing by triggering inflammation and tissue damage. Plant-derived exosomes have recently gained attention as innovative biological agents with promising regenerative capabilities for soft tissue repair. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the effectiveness of injecting three commercial plant-based exosome products: Exoline, Glow, and Elysee in enhancing the healing process of laser-induced skin wounds in a rabbit model. METHODS: One hundred and twenty adult male New Zealand rabbits were randomized into four groups (n = 30 each): untreated control, Exoline, Glow, and Elysee. Full-thickness 1 × 1 cm laser wounds were created on the ventral aspect of the right ear. Exosome-treated groups received 0.1 mL injections into the wound bed and margins immediately after injury. Animals were sacrificed at baseline (Day 0) to confirm comparable wound conditions across groups, and subsequently at Day 7 and Day 14. Wound healing was assessed grossly and histologically using hematoxylin and eosin, Masson's trichrome (for collagen fiber deposition), and CD31 immunohistochemistry (for angiogenesis). Quantitative scoring was performed by blinded observers. RESULTS: Clinically, all wounds achieved apparent closure by Day 14; however, histological assessment revealed persistent differences in tissue organization and angiogenesis between groups. At Day 7, Glow induced the highest collagen deposition, followed by Elysee and Exoline, whereas Exoline elicited the strongest angiogenic response, followed by Elysee and Glow. By Day 14, Glow maintained the lead in collagen maturation, followed by Exoline and Elysee, while Exoline remained most effective for angiogenesis, followed by Elysee and Glow. All exosome-treated groups significantly outperformed controls (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Plant-derived exosomes enhance cutaneous wound repair with formulation-specific benefits. Glow optimized early and late collagen deposition, Exoline promoted angiogenesis, and Elysee contributed to intermediate angiogenic effects. These findings support the potential for tailored exosome-based therapies in regenerative dermatology. These preliminary results in a rabbit model warrant further investigation in long-term studies and human clinical applications.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".