Nanofibrous structured biomimetic strategies for skin tissue regeneration

Mimicking porous topography of natural extracellular matrix is advantageous for successful regeneration of damaged tissues or organs. Nanotechnology being one of the most promising and growing technology today shows an extremely huge potential in the field of tissue engineering. Nanofibrous structures that mimic the native extracellular matrix and promote the adhesion of various cells are being developed as tissue‐engineered scaffolds for skin, bone, vasculature, heart, cornea, nervous system, and other tissues. A range of novel biocomposite materials has been developed to enhance the bioactive or therapeutic properties of these nanofibrous scaffolds via surface modifications, including the immobilization of functional cell‐adhesive ligands and bioactive molecules such as drugs, enzymes, and cytokines. In skin tissue engineering, usage of allogeneic skin is avoided to reestablish physiological continuity and also to address the challenge of curing acute and chronic wounds, which remains as the area of exploration with various biomimetic approaches. Two‐dimensional, three‐dimensional scaffolds and stem cells are presently used as dermal regeneration templates for the treatment of full‐thickness skin defects resulting from injuries and severe burns. The present review elaborates specifically on the fabrication of nanofibrous structured strategies for wound dressings, wound healing, and controlled release of growth factors for skin tissue regeneration.     

Low luminance/eyes closed and monochromatic stimulations reduce variability of flash visual evoked potential latency

Context:

Visual evoked potentials are useful in investigating the physiology and pathophysiology of the human visual system. Flash visual evoked potential (FVEP), though technically easier, has less clinical utility because it shows great variations in both latency and amplitude for normal subjects.

Aim:

To study the effect of eye closure, low luminance, and monochromatic stimulation on the variability of FVEPs.

Subjects and Methods:

Subjects in self-reported good health in the age group of 18-30 years were divided into three groups. All participants underwent FVEP recording with eyes open and with white light at 0.6 J luminance (standard technique). Next recording was done in group 1 with closed eyes, group 2 with 1.2 and 20 J luminance, and group 3 with red and blue lights, while keeping all the other parameters constant. Two trials were given for each eye, for each technique. The same procedure was repeated at the same clock time on the following day.

Statistical Analysis:

Variation in FVEP latencies between the individuals (interindividual variability) and the variations within the same individual for four trials (intraindividual variability) were assessed using coefficient of variance (COV). The technique with lower COV was considered the better method.

Results:

Recording done with closed eyes, 0.6 J luminance, and monochromatic light (blue > red) showed lower interindividual and intraindividual variability in P2 and N2 as compared to standard techniques.

Conclusions:

Low luminance flash stimulations and monochromatic light will reduce FVEP latency variability and may be clinically useful modifications of FVEP recording technique.Key Words: Eye closure, flash visual evoked potentials, latency variability, luminance, monochromatic light, visual evoked potentials