Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_896_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
33 Мб
Скачать
276
https://t.me/med1917
G. Theocharidis and J. Li
repair activity of keratinocytes [49]. Exosomes from human umbilical cord blood can transfer miR-21-3p to promote the regenerative abilities of broblasts and endothelial cells, thereby accelerating wound healing [50]. Therefore, blood­derived EVs may be a potential therapeutic approach for wound healing.
Engineered EVs forWound Healing Applications
To optimize EV functionality and therapeutic impact, vari­ous approaches have been proposed, aiming to manipulate their cargo or their surface protein expression. These engi­neering methods can be either focused on directly modifying the EVs or indirectly altering the EV through manipulation of the parental cell [51].
Ribonucleic Acid-Based Therapeutic Approach
Introduction tomRNA
Messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) functions as the tran­sient intermediator between deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and proteins. These single-stranded RNAs transcribed from the protein-coding regions in DNA can be further translated to produce functional protein molecules. By the develop­ment of in vitro-transcribed (IVT) mRNA that was demon­strated in the late 1990s [52], the mRNA-based therapeutics received considerable attention and numerous researches have been investigated to optimize IVT mRNA transfection efciency, instability, immunogenicity, and delivery [53].
One of the biggest advantages of mRNA-based therapeu­tic approach over plasmid DNA (pDNA)-based gene therapy is the capability of expressing the therapeutic protein without entering inside the nucleus of target cells. Theoretically, the delivered gene of interest, mRNA, accesses the cytoplasm and produces any desired protein/peptide through translation and protein synthesis machinery in the transfected cell. Such an undemanding transfection approach enhances transfec­tion efciency, avoids the risks of genomic integration, and lowers potential toxicity risks. More importantly, compared to direct protein delivery, the mRNA delivered inside the cells is able to trigger long-lasting protein expression due to its continuous translation in targeted cells over the course of hours or days. These advantages of mRNA provide great therapeutic potential in a range of biomedical elds: vaccina­tion [5456], cancer immunotherapy [57], protein replace­ment [58], and genome editing [59, 60], and obviously enable the rapid entry of mRNA therapeutics in treating dia­betic foot ulcers. The mRNA encoding therapeutic proteins can be employed as a direct strategy to supply missing pro-
tein, enhance downregulated endogenous protein, and pro­cure functional foreign proteins to the ulcer area.
The development of mRNA therapeutics for treating DFU is at the initial stage compared to their growth in cancer immunotherapies and vaccines. This is mainly due to [1] the challenges remaining in mRNA delivery systems: target delivery and endosomal escape, and [2] ongoing discovery of healing-associated genes that will have therapeutic poten­tial. In this section, we briey overview representative mRNA delivery methods, mRNA modication strategies, and the potential and ongoing research on genes of interest in managing chronic wounds and in diabetic lower extremity complications.
mRNA Delivery Platforms
Messenger RNAs possess inherent limitations. They have dif­culty penetrating target cells and are easily degraded by nucleases present in biological uids when used as a stand­alone drug. The use of naked mRNAs may result in inefcient cellular uptake, low transfection rate, and immunogenicity. Thus, most research has focused on establishing appropriate delivery methods to improve the mRNA stability and opti­mize mRNA base modication to reduce immunogenicity.
One of the rst experiments using liposomes to deliver exogenous mRNA into mouse lymphocytes dates back to 1978 [61]. The successful translation of mRNA encoding rabbit globin introduced by liposome opened the door to advancing in ionizable lipid and RNA entrapment techniques [55, 58, 62]. Over decades, a variety of materials, mainly lipids-based, have been formulated for mRNA delivery, such as lipids, polymer derivatives, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), and lipid-like materials. Above all, LNPs have been exten­sively studied. As a well-established delivery vehicle, LNPs rst received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2018 for delivering small molecular: siRNA [63]. By 2020, two authorized mRNA-based COVID-19 vac­cines validated the efciency of lipid nanoparticles in deliv­ering base-modied antigen mRNA in humans. They are BNT162b2 from Pzer-BioNTech and mRNA-1273 from Moderna [64].
The properties of LNPs are primarily governed by the chemistry of the lipids and components of other lipids. Lipids are amphiphilic molecules that include a hydrophilic polar head group and a hydrophobic tail [6567]. Cationic LNPs are the most widely used nonviral nucleic acid carri­ers, due to their permanent positively charged head group: quaternary ammonium lipid. Not only do the positively charged LNPs stabilize the entrapment of negatively charged nucleic acid, but also electrostatically promote the adsorp­tion of LNPs to negatively charged cell membranes and facilitate higher cellular uptake rates. The successful release of nucleic acid from their carriers into the cell cytoplasm
15 Role ofExtracellular Vesicles, Modied mRNA, miRNA, andsiRNA inDiabetic Lower Extremity Complications
https://t.me/med1917
277
Fig. 15.1 Schematic illustration of the delivery mechanism of exoge­nous messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), small interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA), and micro ribonucleic acid (miRNA). In addition to being entrapped inside nanoparticle carriers, both ligand-conjugated naked siRNA and miRNA are small enough (~22 kDa) to be delivered
requires the cationic property from the LNP complexes. The anionic lipids in the cell membrane help neutralize the posi­tively charged cationic LNP, then lead to the disruption of electrostatic interactions between the LNP and the nucleic acids. This theory applies to ionizable lipids, another type of lipids that have been studied and evaluated for mRNA deliv­ery in vivo, as well [57, 58, 68]. Ionizable lipids are pH­sensitive. They maintain a neutral charge at physiological pH, but are protonated at low pH [69]. Therefore, the lipid carriers become positively charged when trapped in endo­somes where the pH is lower than the extracellular environ­ment. The positively charged lipid complexes are able to better foster endosomal escape by destabilizing the nega­tively charged cell membrane (Fig.15.1). Compared to cat­ionic lipids, the ionizable lipids in extracellular uids have less interaction with negatively charged red blood cells, and provide an improved biocompatibility and lower toxicity to LNPs [58]. Nevertheless, the quaternary ammonium con­tained in cationic lipid complexes displays immunostimula­tory potency and is widely used as an immune adjuvant in mRNA vaccines [57].
into the cell cytoplasm. However, for relatively large RNA molecules, such as mRNA, lipid nanoparticles are required for delivery. Unlike mRNA-based therapeutic approaches, which enhance protein expres­sion, both siRNA and miRNA are employed for gene silencing (mRNA cleavage) to suppress protein expression
To promote efcient protein expression and target cell delivery efcacy, LNP-mRNA formulations commonly con­tain other helper lipids components in addition to cationic and ionizable lipids, including cholesterol and polyethylene glycol (PEG) lipids. Cholesterol is utilized to enhance and modulate LNP stability, whereas the molar percentage and structure of PEG lipids alters LNP sizes and surface charge, which is determined by zeta potential. More importantly, the addition of PEG lipids endows the ability to conjugate specic ligands or antibody to the surface of LNPs for target delivery [68, 70]. In addition to PEG-linked ligands targeted delivery, scientists recently developed a cell-specic targeting platform named Anchored Secondary scFv Enabling Targeting (ASSET) to coat LNPs with monoclonal antibodies specically binding to the receptor present on the cell membrane to deliver siRNA or mRNA.The ASSET platform successfully achieved a selec­tive protein expression (IL-10) in a specic cell type (Ly6c + leukocytes) in vivo and was explored for treating inammatory bowel disease [71, 72]. The decoration of ligands/antibodies on the surface of nanoparticles opens up the opportunities for cell-selective targeting in chronic diseases
278
https://t.me/med1917
G. Theocharidis and J. Li
like diabetes. Opportunities to leverage mRNA-based thera­peutics to target cell types that are associated with ECM remodeling, angiogenesis, vascularization, and re-epitheliali­zation are now emerging, including but not limited to, bro­blasts, macrophages, keratinocytes, and mast cells.
Structural Elements ofmRNA Molecules andtheir Modications
The selection of materials for lipid carrier synthesis should prioritize endosomal escape and target delivery, the two of the major challenges that remain in mRNA-based therapeu­tics, considering that the surface of the lipids are the rst layer of mRNA-LNP complexes cells can sense. To further enhance translational efcacy, improve mRNA biological activity, and reduce immunogenicity, modications on syn­thetic mRNA are required.
Similar to the natural mRNA in eukaryotic cells, the basic structure of modied mRNA contains ve major structural elements that start with the 5 cap and end with the 3’poly (A) tail, open reading frame (ORF, region encoding the protein of interest) and 5 and 3 untranslated region (5’UTRs and 3’ UTRs) in between [56, 73, 74] (Fig.15.2a). Incorporation of functional 5 cap structure in synthetic mRNA allows binding to eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E (EIF4E) and pro­tects mRNA from nuclease degradation by binding to mRNA decapping enzymes. The most common 5 cap consists of an inverted 7-methylguanosine and has 5′-5 triphosphate (m7GpppN, Cap 0) that serves as a bridge in between to con­nect the rest of the mRNA complexes [75]. The length of the 3 poly(A) tails has been found to affect the translation ef­ciency. The protein expression levels are positively correlated with the length of the 3 poly (A) tails and an optimal length is
Fig. 15.2 Schematic illustration of lipid nanoparticle nucleic acid (LNP-mRNA/siRNA/miRNA) carrier structure (top) and intracellular trafck­ing of LNP complexes (bottom)
15 Role ofExtracellular Vesicles, Modied mRNA, miRNA, andsiRNA inDiabetic Lower Extremity Complications
https://t.me/med1917
279
considered ranging from 120A to 150A [56]. In addition, both the translation efciency and half-life of synthetic mRNA are regulated by the 5 and 3 untranslated regions (UTR). A highly structured 5’ UTR region is not recommended, since 5’ UTR is important for initiation of the translation; whereas 3’ UTRs are mostly derived from β-globin [73].
The delivered exogenous mRNA presents inherent immu­nostimulation and can be recognized as foreign mRNA by intracellular sensors, due to their lack of the natural modied nucleotides present in natural mRNA.Unmodied mRNAs have been shown to signal through human toll-like receptors (TLRs), including TLR3, TLR7, and TLR8, resulting in upregulated type I interferon, TNF-α expression, and IL-12 expression [76]. To reduce immunogenicity, the following nucleotides are commonly used to modify synthetic mRNA: N [1]-methylpseudouridine (m [1]Ψ), pseudouridine (Ψ), 5-methylcytidine (5mC), N6-methyladenosine (m [6]A), 5-methyluridine (5meU), 5-methoxyuridine (5moU), 5-hydroxymethyl-cytidine (5hmC), or 2-thiouridine (S [2]U) [7780] (Fig.15.2b). Not only does the incorporation of the modied nucleotides decrease innate immune activation, but also enhances protein expression and protects mRNA from RNAse degradation in physiological environments. Moreover, research has shown a combination of modica­tions is more benecial to replicate the modied nucleotides in natural mRNA.The mRNA harboring both Ψ and 5mC signicantly lowered the IFN-β and TNF-α expression in macrophages [81]. The m [1]Ψ/5mC-modied mRNA encoding FLuc displayed a higher luciferase activity than those modied solely with m [1]Ψ or 5mC [79]. In addition to m [1]Ψ/5mC modication combination, combinations of 5hmC/5meU and 5moC/5meU-modied FLuc mRNAs exhibited superior luciferase activity compared to unmodi­ed mRNA [78]. These ndings support the critical role of chemical modications of mRNA in improving its stability and prolonging transcription time.
Current Genes ofInterest inTreating DFU
During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, modied mRNA thera­peutic applications in viral infection and vaccination gained global attention. The investigation of mRNA-based thera­peutics on how to treat DFU is also progressing. Many researches have focused on identifying and targeting the genes that are associated with diabetic/chronic wound healing.
A signicant percentage of diabetic patients are suffering from peripheral artery disease (PAD). Due to the vascular dysfunction present in diabetic foot ulcers, peripheral isch­emia in lower extremity is one of the major factors contribut­ing to impaired wound healing [82]. Targeting genes that are essential to angiogenesis and vascularization to promote wound healing has been proposed as a promising strategy. In
particular, the most extensively studied mRNA-based thera­peutic strategy in both preclinical animal models and human clinical trials is vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A) [8389]. The Ψ/5mC-modied mRNA encoding VEGF-A (165) was the rst developed for improving cardiac function by regulating new blood vessel formation, stimulat­ing endothelial proliferation [90, 91]. The modied VEGF-A mRNA, known as AZD8601 [92], was the rst mRNA-based therapeutics evaluated in patients with type 2 diabetes [86].
The therapeutic protein expression and effects of chemi-
cally modied VEGF-A
in wound healing were validated
165
in mouse and human studies. The intradermal injection of AZD8601, formulated with Lipofectamine2000, in db/db mice upregulated blood ow, promoted new vessel forma­tion and blood oxygen supply, and accelerated re­epithelization in a dose-dependent manner compared to the wounds treated with recombinant human VEGF-A protein or citrate/saline vehicle [89]. In 2019, naked chemically modi­ed VEGF-A
(AZD8601) was rst evaluated in a human
165
study with intradermal injections on the forearm. The study recruited 18–65years-old male volunteers with type 2 diabe­tes mellitus and included three different dosages of mRNA ranging from 24ug to 360ug. At the mRNA-treated sites, upregulated VEGF-A protein levels were observed at 4–24h post-administration, and basal skin blood ow was enhanced at 4h to 7days post-administration [86]. Nevertheless, the increased local mRNA diffusivity can signicantly lower the therapeutic performance due to the rapid degradation/loss of mRNA at the wound injection sites [83, 84, 87]. Thus, the delivery carrier for modied mRNA matters, as was earlier discussed. An ionizable lipid nanoparticle vehicle composed of ionizable lipid, PEG
, 1,2- distearoyl- sn- glycerol- choli
2000
ne 3-phosphate (DSPC), and cholesterol was developed for the delivery of mRNA encoding VEGF-A protein and was validated in both regular [84] and streptozotocin-induced diabetic C57BL/6 mouse models [83]. The VEGF-A mRNA­LNP transfection efcacy and therapeutic protein expression was profoundly upregulated when compared to naked VEGF-A mRNA.Collagen deposition and vascular forma­tion in VEGF-A mRNA-LNP-treated wounds were enhanced ~30% more than in naked mRNA-treated wounds [84].
The success of VEGF-A
(AZD8601) mRNA-based
165
therapeutic effects in diabetic wound healing is a major mile­stone and impelled the investigations of other genes of inter­est associated with healing in treating impaired wounds. Growing evidence has shown the benecial impact of using growth factors (cytokines and human recombinant protein), such as VEGF, keratinocyte growth factor (KGF) [93, 94], epidermal growth factor (EGF) [95, 96], basic broblasts growth factors (bFGF) [96], and platelet-derived growth fac­tor (PDGF) [97], on promoting impaired diabetic wound healing. Potential mRNA candidates could include modied
280
https://t.me/med1917
G. Theocharidis and J. Li
bFGF, KFG, EGF mRNA, or any other genes that are pro­reparative to modulate either the inammation or/and prolif­eration stages in wound healing. Many genes of interest are currently being investigated and require validation in appro­priate diabetic preclinical models to determine their translat­ability to humans.
Intro toSmall Interfering RNA (siRNA)
Small interfering RNAs (siRNA)-based drug/treatment is one other major class in RNA therapies that can manipulate gene/protein expression. The main biochemical mechanism of action of siRNA-based therapeutics currently under research, clinical trials, or FDA approval is to mediate gene silencing [72]. Unlike mRNA (~340–2300kDa), siRNAs are smaller in size (~ 13kDa) with a double-stranded structure. To sufciently suppress protein translation (gene knock­down), siRNA interferes with the mature mRNA; thus, the
a
siRNA sequence is designed specically to target mRNA that encodes the undesired protein. After the siRNA is deliv­ered into the cell cytoplasm, the endogenous RNA interfer­ence machinery of the cell is triggered. Then, RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC) is recruited to load the antisense strand from delivered siRNA to pair it to targeted comple­mentary mRNAs. Once the target sequence is located and paired, the mRNA is cleaved by the catalytic RISC protein, Argonaute 2 (Ago2), resulting in reduced expression of the protein-coding gene. Similar to mRNA delivery, siRNA only requires cytoplasmic delivery. Besides synthetic delivery carriers mentioned previously, siRNAs can also be solely delivered by using a small conjugate or antibody due to their smaller size; whereas, synthetic nanovehicles are required for sufcient delivery of larger RNAs, such as mRNA (Fig.15.3). Nevertheless, the most effective siRNA delivery is achieved by using lipid nanoparticles as the carrier [98]. The rst siRNA-LNP based therapeutics was approved by the FDA in 2018, known as Onpattro (treating polyneuropa-
b
Fig. 15.3 Basic structure of modied mRNA (a) and examples of chemically modied nucleobases (b) [58]. (Copyright 2021, American Chemical Society)
15 Role ofExtracellular Vesicles, Modied mRNA, miRNA, andsiRNA inDiabetic Lower Extremity Complications
https://t.me/med1917
281
thies) [63]. One year later, delivering N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc) conjugated siRNA to hepatocytes against ami­nolevulinate synthase 1 (ALAS1) was approved by the FDA to treat porphyria attacks [99]. The convenient delivery methods available has enabled the application of siRNA drugs in numerous diseases [100, 101]. In recent years, the investigation of siRNA has been thriving and showing great potential in diabetic wound healing.
Current Genes Modulated forWound Healing Acceleration
siPHD2
Enhancing the stability of hypoxia-inducible factor-α (HIF-1α) via the siRNA mechanism to regulate cell behavior and promote tissue formation has been studied for over 15years [102, 103]. This critical transcription factor is pri­marily involved in cellular responses, including cell viability, motility, and adhesion, to lower O2 levels (Hypoxia) [104]. Oxygen is required for the normal function of most cells; however, during the course of wound healing, hypoxia can be benecial for the production of growth factors and cyto­kines that promote angiogenesis and tissue repair [105]. Studies have demonstrated that mice with constitutive expression of the HIF-1α protein developed 66% more blood vessels compared to mice without HIF-1α expression [106]. The overexpression of HIF-1α upregulated VEGF and FGF2 protein expression, and vascular density. Hyperglycemia has been shown to negatively impact the hypoxic response, lead­ing to less stabilization of HIF-1α in diabetic wound environ­ments when compared to non-diabetic wounds. Berra etal. reported that HIF prolyl-hydroxylases domain-2 (PHD2) contributes to hydroxylate proline residues on HIF-1α in normoxia. Silencing PHD2 via PHD2 siRNA was found to sufciently improve the stability of HIF-1α in normoxia [103]. Thus, targeting expression of HIF-1α via siRNA­based therapy would be benecial for promoting angiogen­esis DFU healing.
Various delivery systems for PHD2 siRNA have been validated in different animal models. Diabetic db/db mice wounds treated by agarose matrix loaded PHD2 siRNA topi­cally upregulated the protein levels of HIF-1α, mRNA levels of VEGF and FGF-2, and vascular density compared to the control group which was treated with nonsense siRNA [105]. To promote siRNA delivery efciency, Nelson etal. devel­oped biodegradable scaffolds (polyester triol prepolymers) loaded with siRNA-nanoparticles (di-block copolymer poly [DMAEMA71-b-(BMA103-co-PAA68-co-DMAEMA57)] self-assembled micellar) to achieve a sustained release of siRNA and facilitate exosome escape. The scaffold-loaded PHD2 siRNA-nanoparticle-treated balb/c mice wounds demonstrated an increased number of vessels within scaf­folds [107]. A similar PHD2 siRNA delivery method has
been validated on a diabetic rat model, resulting in elevated α-SMA vessels and Col IV vessels in PHD2 siRNA-treated wounds [108].
siMMP9
Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) are a family (24 different MMPs in human) of zinc-dependent endopeptidases that are overexpressed in many diseases, leading to physiological and pathological disorders [109]. MMPs play critical roles in the pathology of diabetic foot ulcers, the most common forms of chronic wounds [110]. The persistence of elevated levels of MMP-9 was detected in prolonged chronic cutane­ous wounds where healing was signicantly impaired [111]. MMP-9 was found to be detrimental to tissue remodeling and regeneration in the healing process due to its capability of degrading various kinds of extracellular matrix. The study of diabetic MMP-9 knockout mice provided further conr­mation of the detrimental impact of MMP-9 on diabetic wound pathology, as these mice were observed to have impaired wound healing [110]. Thus, a siRNA-based thera­peutic approach of targeting MMP-9 for the treatment of DFU has been increasingly investigated.
One of the major challenges for gene therapy strategies is to build an efcient and safe delivery platform. Due to the anionic phosphate groups in the MMP-9-siRNA, cationic polymers are often selected as the carriers for this siRNA. Compared to naked MMP-9 siRNA, the β-cyclodextrin (β-CD) core and poly (amidoamine) Dendron arms (β-CD-[D3]7)/MMP-9-siRNA complexes promoted wound healing in diabetic rats on Day 7 [112]. Repeated administration of (β-CD-[D3]7)/MMP-9-siRNA, however, may result in the accumulation of siMMP-9 in the liver, which could cause thrombocytopenia or peripheral neuropa­thy. A controlled, sustained, and localized delivery system for RNAi therapy is needed to maximize the MMP-9 siRNA therapeutic effect in diabetic wound healing. Many research labs have focused on using cationic polysaccharide deriva­tives, including chitosan, dextran, pectin, and pullulan, or a hybrid hydrogel dressing to achieve controlled MMP-9 siRNA release [113118]. Using electrostatic assembly, a layer-by-layer (layer of siRNA lm and layer of chitosan) self-assembled hydrogel incorporated with siRNA was able to achieve localized delivery into wound beds with sustained release. This approach resulted in a signicant reduction of MMP-9 expression through sufcient knockdown [113]. Unlike linear cationic polymers, hyperbranched cationic polysaccharide derivatives (HCP) have been found to be effective as nonviral gene delivery vectors due to their com­pact and globular structures. Studies have demonstrated that these vectors exhibit higher transfection efciency while causing minimal cytotoxicity [119]. The ethylenediamine (EDA)—or diethylenediamine (DETA)-modied glycogen can form complexes with siMMP-9 with a diameter of 100-
282
https://t.me/med1917
G. Theocharidis and J. Li
Fig. 15.4 Schematic illustration of a supramolecular peptide hydrogel doped with siRNA-loaded NPs for local siMMP-9 delivery in diabetic wound healing. After administration of this siRNA delivery system to the diabetic wound as dressing (a), the peptide hydrogel could signi­cantly prolong the retention of siRNA-loaded NPs at the wound tissues
200 nm. Particularly, EDA-modied glycogen siMMP-9 complex-treated diabetic rats’ wounds resulted in enhanced wound healing by 20% higher wound closure rates compared to pure EDA modied glycogen treated and control wounds [114]. The most promising and appealing approach for deliv­ering siRNA via a nanoplatform currently is the incorpora­tion of siRNA-LNP into hydrogel substrates [118]. LNP is used to protect siRNA from degradation and increase cellu­lar uptake efciency, while hydrogel dressing facilitates the sustained release of LNP (Fig.15.4). One recent study dem­onstrated that supramolecular peptide hydrogel incorporated siMMP-9 loaded nanoparticles (cationic lipid-like com­pound) efciently silenced MMP-9 expression up to day 7 post-wounding, improved the rate of wound healing, and enhanced the maturity of collagen in diabetic rats [118].
Other Potential siRNA inTreating DFU
There are other types of emerging siRNA that have demon­strated excellent results in regulating gene expression in impaired diabetic animal wound models, including Keap1 and GM3S siRNA.While these siRNAs of interest have not been heavily studied, the remarkable results they have obtained are noteworthy.
Several studies have demonstrated that diabetic wounds with hyperglycemia have elevated levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) compared to normoglycemic wounds, due to the hyperglycemia-associated oxidative stress. Such an
(b). With the sustained release of siRNA-loaded NPs from the hydrogel network (c), the keratinocytes could efciently internalize the loaded siRNA (d), leading to signicant inhibition of MMP-9 expression (e) and thereby effective diabetic wound healing [118]. (Copyright 2023, Elsevier)
imbalanced ROS production may result in dysregulated reduction-oxidation (redox) state in the wounds. Nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) signaling pathway plays a crucial role in regulating antioxidants and maintain­ing redox homeostasis by reducing the oxidative stress [120]. Upregulation of Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1 (Keap1) is observed in diabetes, which functions as a repres­sor of Nrf2 and leads to a high level of ROS accumulation. Topical siKeap1 therapy can effectively restore Nrf2 signal­ing in diabetic mouse models, leading to a reduction in ROS accumulation, and higher Nrf2 protein expression in the wound area. The wound healing outcomes in db/db mice were improved with increased granulation tissue, newly gen­erated vessel counts, and reduced epithelial gap [120]. The improved siKeap1 delivery efcacy was demonstrated using lipoproteoplex nanoparticles composed of cationic lipid nanoparticles and coiled-coil protein, or milk-derived exo­somes as carriers [121, 122]. Both topical delivery systems successfully restored Nrf2 antioxidant function, promoted diabetic tissue regeneration, and enhanced collagen forma­tion in db/db mice and STZ-induced diabetic mice models, respectively [121, 122].
The overexpression of ganglioside-monosialic acid 3syn­thase (GM3S) in diabetic human plantar skin is known to cause insulin resistance and impair wound healing. Randeria etal. developed a spherical GM3S nucleic acids loaded gold nanoparticle delivery system to knockdown GM3 synthase.
15 Role ofExtracellular Vesicles, Modied mRNA, miRNA, andsiRNA inDiabetic Lower Extremity Complications
https://t.me/med1917
283
In contrast to LNP nanoplatform, duplexed GM3S thiolated siRNA were modied onto the surface of 13 nm gold nanoparticles. Topically delivered spherical GM3S siRNA accelerated the healing rate by promoting granulation tissue area, vascularity, and most importantly, upregulating insulin­like growth factor (IGF1) and epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor phosphorylation in type 2 diabetic mice [123].
The siRNA-based treatment has exhibited great potential in treating diabetic wounds, as it has the capability of target­ing/silencing specic undesired mRNA expression. However, there are still limitations and challenges, such as efcient gene selection from databases, target delivery, endosomal escape, and prolonged RNA stability. The future approach for RNA-based therapeutic is a combination of appropriate gene selection and their nano carriers (LNP), with the ulti­mate objective of maximizing the efcacy of RNA delivery. Advanced RNA-based therapies have shown promising results in treating diabetic wound healing and may become a standard treatment option in the future. However, further research and clinical trials are necessary to fully understand their safety and efcacy before they can be widely adopted in clinical settings.
References
1. van Niel G, D'Angelo G, Raposo G. Shedding light on the cell biology of extracellular vesicles. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2018;19:213–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2017.125.
2. Vader P, Mol EA, Pasterkamp G, Schiffelers RM. Extracellular vesicles for drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;106:148–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2016.02.006.
3. Gurung S, Perocheau D, Touramanidou L, Baruteau J. The exo­some journey: from biogenesis to uptake and intracellular signal­ling. Cell Commun Signal. 2021;19:47. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12964- 021- 00730- 1.
4. Taylor J, Bebawy M.Proteins regulating microvesicle biogenesis and multidrug resistance in cancer. Proteomics. 2019;19:e1800165.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201800165.
5. Xie S, Zhang Q, Jiang L. Current knowledge on exosome bio­genesis, cargo-sorting mechanism and therapeutic implications. Membranes (Basel). 2022;12(5):498. https://doi.org/10.3390/
membranes12050498.
6. Jahn R, Sudhof TC.Membrane fusion and exocytosis. Annu Rev Biochem. 1999;68:863–911. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
biochem.68.1.863.
7. Nabi IR, Le PU.Caveolae/raft-dependent endocytosis. J Cell Biol. 2003;161:673–7. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200302028.
8. Doherty GJ, McMahon HT.Mechanisms of endocytosis. Annu Rev Biochem. 2009;78:857–902. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
biochem.78.081307.110540.
9. van Dongen HM, Masoumi N, Witwer KW, Pegtel DM. Extracellular vesicles exploit viral entry routes for cargo delivery. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2016;80:369–86. https://doi.
org/10.1128/MMBR.00063- 15.
10. Gurtner GC, Werner S, Barrandon Y, Longaker MT. Wound repair and regeneration. Nature. 2008;453:314–21. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nature07039.
11. Furie B, Furie BC.Mechanisms of thrombus formation. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:938–49. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra0801082.
12. Koh TJ, DiPietro LA.Inammation and wound healing: the role of the macrophage. Expert Rev Mol Med. 2011;13:e23. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S1462399411001943.
13. Eming SA, Krieg T, Davidson JM. Inammation in wound repair: molecular and cellular mechanisms. J Invest Dermatol. 2007;127:514–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jid.5700701.
14. Velnar T, Bailey T, Smrkolj V. The wound healing process: an overview of the cellular and molecular mechanisms. J Int Med Res. 2009;37:1528–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/147323000903700531.
15. Theocharidis G, Connelly JT.Minor collagens of the skin with not so minor functions. J Anat. 2019;235:418–29. https://doi.
org/10.1111/joa.12584.
16. Baum CL, Arpey CJ. Normal cutaneous wound heal­ing: clinical correlation with cellular and molecular events. Dermatologic Surg. 2005;31:674-686; discussion 686. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1524- 4725.2005.31612.
17. Kou M, etal. Mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular ves­icles for immunomodulation and regeneration: a next genera­tion therapeutic tool? Cell Death Dis. 2022;13:580. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41419- 022- 05034- x.
18. Lo Sicco C, et al. Mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles as mediators of anti-inammatory effects: endorsement of macrophage polarization. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2017;6:1018–
28. https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.16- 0363.
19. Ti D, et al. LPS-preconditioned mesenchymal stromal cells modify macrophage polarization for resolution of chronic inam­mation via exosome-shuttled let-7b. J Transl Med. 2015;13:308.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967- 015- 0642- 6.
20. Yu B, etal. Exosomes derived from MSCs ameliorate retinal laser injury partially by inhibition of MCP-1. Sci Rep. 2016;6:34562.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34562.
21. Yang J, et al. Extracellular vesicles derived from bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells protect against experimental colitis via attenuating colon inammation, oxidative stress and apoptosis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0140551. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0140551.
22. Monguio-Tortajada M, et al. Nanosized UCMSC-derived extra­cellular vesicles but not conditioned medium exclusively inhibit the inammatory response of stimulated T cells: implications for nanomedicine. Theranostics. 2017;7:270–84. https://doi.
org/10.7150/thno.16154.
23. Ti D, Hao H, Fu X, Han W. Mesenchymal stem cells-derived exosomal microRNAs contribute to wound inammation. Sci China Life Sci. 2016;59:1305–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11427- 016- 0240- 4.
24. Liang X, Zhang L, Wang S, Han Q, Zhao RC.Exosomes secreted by mesenchymal stem cells promote endothelial cell angiogenesis by transferring miR-125a. J Cell Sci. 2016;129:2182–9. https://
doi.org/10.1242/jcs.170373.
25. Ren S, etal. Microvesicles from human adipose stem cells pro­mote wound healing by optimizing cellular functions via AKT and ERK signaling pathways. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2019;10:47. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s13287- 019- 1152- x.
26. Zhang J, etal. Exosomes released from human induced pluripo­tent stem cells-derived MSCs facilitate cutaneous wound healing by promoting collagen synthesis and angiogenesis. J Transl Med. 2015;13:49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967- 015- 0417- 0.
27. Hu L, etal. Exosomes derived from human adipose mensenchy­mal stem cells accelerates cutaneous wound healing via optimiz­ing the characteristics of broblasts. Sci Rep. 2016;6:32993.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32993.
28. McBride JD, etal. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell-derived CD63(+) exosomes transport Wnt3a exteriorly and enhance der­mal broblast proliferation, migration, and angiogenesis invitro. Stem Cells Dev. 2017;26:1384–98. https://doi.org/10.1089/
scd.2017.0087.
284
https://t.me/med1917
G. Theocharidis and J. Li
29. Cooper DR, etal. Human adipose-derived stem cell conditioned media and exosomes containing MALAT1 promote human der­mal broblast migration and ischemic wound healing. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2018;7:299–308. https://doi.org/10.1089/
wound.2017.0775.
30. Zhang B, et al. HucMSC-exosome mediated-Wnt4 signaling is required for cutaneous wound healing. Stem Cells. 2015;33:2158–
68. https://doi.org/10.1002/stem.1771.
31. Martin P. Wound healing—aiming for perfect skin regen­eration. Science. 1997;276:75–81. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.276.5309.75.
32. Wang L, et al. Exosomes secreted by human adipose mesenchy­mal stem cells promote scarless cutaneous repair by regulating extracellular matrix remodelling. Sci Rep. 2017;7:13321. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41598- 017- 12919- x.
33. Fang S, et al. Umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cell­derived Exosomal MicroRNAs suppress Myobroblast dif­ferentiation by inhibiting the transforming growth factor-beta/ SMAD2 pathway during wound healing. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2016;5:1425–39. https://doi.org/10.5966/sctm.2015- 0367.
34. Zhao B, et al. Exosomes derived from human amniotic epi­thelial cells accelerate wound healing and inhibit scar forma­tion. J Mol Histol. 2017;48:121–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10735- 017- 9711- x.
35. Zhang D, etal. Exosome-mediated small RNA delivery: a novel therapeutic approach for inammatory lung responses. Mol Ther. 2018;26:2119–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2018.06.007.
36. Li M, etal. Macrophage-derived exosomes accelerate wound heal­ing through their anti-inammation effects in a diabetic rat model. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol. 2019;47:3793–803. https://doi.
org/10.1080/21691401.2019.1669617.
37. Chen J, et al. Blockade of lncRNA-ASLNCS5088-enriched exo­some generation in M2 macrophages by GW4869 dampens the effect of M2 macrophages on orchestrating broblast activation. FASEB J. 2019;33:12200–12. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.201901610.
38. Han X, et al. Exosomes derived from autologous dermal bro­blasts promote diabetic cutaneous wound healing through the Akt/ beta-catenin pathway. Cell Cycle. 2021;20:616–29. https://doi.org
/10.1080/15384101.2021.1894813.
39. Oh EJ, etal. Extracellular vesicles derived from broblasts pro­mote wound healing by optimizing broblast and endothelial cellular functions. Stem Cells. 2021;39:266–79. https://doi.
org/10.1002/stem.3310.
40. Li Q, Zhao H, Chen W, Huang P, Bi J.Human keratinocyte-derived microvesicle miRNA-21 promotes skin wound healing in diabetic rats through facilitating broblast function and angiogenesis. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2019;114:105570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocel.2019.105570.
41. Huang P, et al. Keratinocyte microvesicles regulate the expres­sion of multiple genes in dermal broblasts. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135:3051–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2015.320.
42. Glady A, Vandebroek A, Yasui M. Human keratinocyte-derived extracellular vesicles activate the MAPKinase pathway and pro­mote cell migration and proliferation in vitro. Inamm Regen. 2021;41:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41232- 021- 00154- x.
43. Wang P, etal. Exosomes derived from epidermal stem cells improve diabetic wound healing. J Invest Dermatol. 2022;142:2508–2517 e2513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2022.01.030.
44. Goetzl EJ, etal. Altered cargo proteins of human plasma endo­thelial cell-derived exosomes in atherosclerotic cerebrovascular disease. FASEB J. 2017;31:3689–94. https://doi.org/10.1096/
fj.201700149.
45. Wei F, etal. Plasma endothelial cells-derived extracellular vesicles promote wound healing in diabetes through YAP and the PI3K/ Akt/mTOR pathway. Aging (Albany NY). 2020;12:12002–18.
https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.103366.
46. Zeng T, etal. Endothelial cell-derived small extracellular vesicles suppress cutaneous wound healing through regulating broblasts autophagy. Clin Sci (Lond). 2019;133:CS20190008. https://doi.
org/10.1042/CS20190008.
47. Qi L, Lu Y, Wang Z, Zhang G. microRNA-106b derived from endothelial cell-secreted extracellular vesicles prevents skin wound healing by inhibiting JMJD3 and RIPK3. J Cell Mol Med. 2021;25:4551–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.16037.
48. Guo SC, etal. Exosomes derived from platelet-rich plasma pro­mote the re-epithelization of chronic cutaneous wounds via activa­tion of YAP in a diabetic rat model. Theranostics. 2017;7:81–96.
https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.16803.
49. Xu Y, et al. Platelet-rich plasma-derived Exosomal USP15 pro­motes cutaneous wound healing via deubiquitinating EIF4A1. Oxidative Med Cell Longev. 2021;2021:9674809. https://doi.
org/10.1155/2021/9674809.
50. Hu Y, et al. Exosomes from human umbilical cord blood accel­erate cutaneous wound healing through miR-21-3p-mediated promotion of angiogenesis and broblast function. Theranostics. 2018;8:169–84. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.21234.
51. Armstrong JP, Holme MN, Stevens MM.Re-engineering extra­cellular vesicles as smart nanoscale therapeutics. ACS Nano. 2017;11:69–83. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.6b07607.
52. Wolff JA, Malone RW, Williams P, Chong W, Acsadi G, Jani A, Felgner PL. Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Science. 1990;247:1465–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1690918.
53. Balmayor ER.Synthetic mRNA—emerging new class of drug for tissue regeneration. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2022;74:8–14. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2021.10.015.
54. Hou X, Zaks T, Langer R, Dong Y.Lipid nanoparticles for mRNA delivery. Nat Rev Mater. 2021;6:1078–94. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41578- 021- 00358- 0.
55. Elkhalifa D, Rayan M, Negmeldin AT, Elhissi A, Khalil A. Chemically modied mRNA beyond COVID-19: potential preventive and therapeutic applications for targeting chronic diseases. Biomed Pharmacother. 2022;145:112385. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biopha.2021.112385.
56. Kim SC, et al. Modications of mRNA vaccine structural ele­ments for improving mRNA stability and translation ef­ciency. Mol Cell Toxicol. 2022;18:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13273- 021- 00171- 4.
57. Miao L, Zhang Y, Huang L. mRNA vaccine for cancer immu­notherapy. Mol Cancer. 2021;20:41. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12943- 021- 01335- 5.
58. Wang C, Zhang Y, Dong Y. Lipid nanoparticle-mRNA formula­tions for therapeutic applications. Acc Chem Res. 2021;54:4283–
93. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.1c00550.
59. Li B, et al. Engineering CRISPR–Cpf1 crRNAs and mRNAs to maximize genome editing efciency. Nat Biomed Eng. 2017;1:1–10.
60. Zhao W, Hou X, Vick OG, Dong Y. RNA delivery bio­materials for the treatment of genetic and rare diseases. Biomaterials. 2019;217:119291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biomaterials.2019.119291.
61. Dimitradis GJ.Translation of rabbit globin mRN a introduced by Iiposomes into mouse lymphocytes. Nature. 1978;274:923–4.
62. Robinson E, etal. Lipid nanoparticle-delivered chemically modi­ed mRNA restores chloride secretion in cystic brosis. Mol Ther. 2018;26:2034–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2018.05.014.
63. Akinc A, et al. The Onpattro story and the clinical transla­tion of nanomedicines containing nucleic acid-based drugs. Nat Nanotechnol. 2019;14:1084–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41565- 019- 0591- y.
64. Islam N, Sheils NE, Jarvis MS, Cohen K. Comparative effec­tiveness over time of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine and
15 Role ofExtracellular Vesicles, Modied mRNA, miRNA, andsiRNA inDiabetic Lower Extremity Complications
https://t.me/med1917
285
the BNT162b2 (Pzer-BioNTech) vaccine. Nat Commun. 2022;13:2377.
65. Zhang W, et al. Lipid carriers for mRNA delivery. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2022;13(10):4105–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apsb.2022.11.026.
66. Zhang Y, Sun C, Wang C, Jankovic KE, Dong Y.Lipids and lipid derivatives for RNA delivery. Chem Rev. 2021;121:12181–277.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00244.
67. Li B, Zhang X, Dong Y. Nanoscale platforms for messenger RNA delivery. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol. 2019;11:e1530. https://doi.org/10.1002/wnan.1530.
68. Han X, etal. Ligand-tethered lipid nanoparticles for targeted RNA delivery to treat liver brosis. Nat Commun. 2023;14:75. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41467- 022- 35637- z.
69. Ball RL, Hajj KA, Vizelman J, Bajaj P, Whitehead KA. Lipid nanoparticle formulations for enhanced co-delivery of siRNA and mRNA.Nano Lett. 2018;18:3814–22. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
nanolett.8b01101.
70. Torchilin V, etal. P-Nitrophenylcarbonyl-PEG-PE-liposomes: fast and simple attachment of specic ligands, including monoclonal antibodies, to distal ends of PEG chains via p-nitrophenylcarbonyl groups. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2001;1511:397–411.
71. Veiga N, etal. Cell specic delivery of modied mRNA express­ing therapeutic proteins to leukocytes. Nat Commun. 2018;9:4493.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467- 018- 06936- 1.
72. Paunovska K, Loughrey D, Dahlman JE.Drug delivery systems for RNA therapeutics. Nat Rev Genet. 2022;23:265–80. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41576- 021- 00439- 4.
73. Linares-Fernandez S, et al. Combining an optimized mRNA template with a double purication process allows strong expres­sion of in vitro transcribed mRNA. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2021;26:945–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omtn.2021.10.007.
74. Oberli MA, et al. Lipid nanoparticle assisted mRNA delivery for potent cancer immunotherapy. Nano Lett. 2017;17:1326–35.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b03329.
75. Wojcik R, et al. Novel N7-arylmethyl substituted dinucleotide mRNA 5 cap analogs: synthesis and evaluation as modulators of translation. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13:1941.
76. Kariko K, Buckstein M, Ni H, Weissman D. Suppression of RNA recognition by toll-like receptors: the impact of nucleo­side modication and the evolutionary origin of RNA.Immunity. 2005;23:165–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2005.06.008.
77. Uchida S, Kataoka K, Itaka K. Screening of mRNA chemi­cal modication to maximize protein expression with reduced immunogenicity. Pharmaceutics. 2015;7:137–51. https://doi.
org/10.3390/pharmaceutics7030137.
78. Li B, Luo X, Dong Y.Effects of chemically modied messenger RNA on protein expression. Bioconjug Chem. 2016;27:849–53.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.6b00090.
79. Andries O, et al. N1-methylpseudouridine-incorporated mRNA outperforms pseudouridine-incorporated mRNA by providing enhanced protein expression and reduced immunogenicity in mam­malian cell lines and mice. J Control Release. 2015;217:337–44.
80. Uchida S, Perche F, Pichon C, Cabral H. Nanomedicine-based approaches for mRNA delivery. Mol Pharm. 2020;17:3654–84.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.0c00618.
81. Moradian H, Roch T, Lendlein A, Gossen M. mRNA transfection­induced activation of primary human monocytes and macrophages: dependence on carrier system and nucleotide modication. Sci Rep. 2020;10:4181. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598- 020- 60506- 4.
82. Spiliopoulos S, Festas G, Paraskevopoulos I, Mariappan M, Brountzos E.Overcoming ischemia in the diabetic foot: minimally invasive treatment options. World J Diabetes. 2021;12:2011–26.
https://doi.org/10.4239/wjd.v12.i12.2011.
83. Zha W, et al. Efcient delivery of VEGF-A mRNA for pro­moting diabetic wound healing via ionizable lipid nanopar-
ticles. Int J Pharm. 2023;632:122565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpharm.2022.122565.
84. Dong S, et al. Efcient delivery of VEGFA mRNA for pro­moting wound healing via ionizable lipid nanoparticles. Bioorg Med Chem. 2023;78:117135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bmc.2022.117135.
85. Yu F, et al. Human adipose-derived stem cells enriched with VEGF-modied mRNA promote angiogenesis and long-term graft survival in a fat graft transplantation model. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2020;11:490. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287- 020- 02008- 8.
86. Gan LM, etal. Intradermal delivery of modied mRNA encod­ing VEGF-A in patients with type 2 diabetes. Nat Commun. 2019;10:871. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467- 019- 08852- 4.
87. Rikard SM, etal. Mathematical model predicts that acceleration of diabetic wound healing is dependent on spatial distribution of VEGF-A mRNA (AZD8601). Cell Mol Bioeng. 2021;14:321–38.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12195- 021- 00678- 9.
88. Almquist J, et al. Model-based analysis reveals a sustained and dose-dependent acceleration of wound healing by VEGF-A mRNA (AZD8601). CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2020;9:384–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp4.12516.
89. Sun N, etal. Modied VEGF-A mRNA induces sustained mul­tifaceted microvascular response and accelerates diabetic wound healing. Sci Rep. 2018;8:1–11.
90. Carlsson L, et al. Biocompatible, puried VEGF-A mRNA improves cardiac function after Intracardiac injection 1 week post-myocardial infarction in swine. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev. 2018;9:330–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omtm.2018.04.003.
91. Zangi L, etal. Modied mRNA directs the fate of heart progenitor cells and induces vascular regeneration after myocardial infarc­tion. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:898–907. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nbt.2682.
92. Mullard A. mRNA-based drug approaches phase I milestone. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016;15:595. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nrd.2016.182.
93. Xiaojie W, et al. Scarless wound healing: current insights from the perspectives of TGF-β, KGF-1, and KGF-2. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2022;66:26–37.
94. Cai J, etal. Comparative analysis of KGF-2 and bFGF in preven­tion of excessive wound healing and scar formation in a corneal alkali burn model. Cornea. 2019;38:1430–7.
95. Choi SM, etal. Effects of structurally stabilized EGF and bFGF on wound healing in type I and type II diabetic mice. Acta Biomater. 2018;66:325–34.
96. Hui Q, Jin Z, Li X, Liu C, Wang X.FGF family: from drug devel­opment to clinical application. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19:1875.
97. Shi R, et al. Nanosphere-mediated co-delivery of VEGF-A and PDGF-B genes for accelerating diabetic foot ulcers healing in rats. Gene Ther. 2018;25:425–38.
98. Wittrup A, et al. Visualizing lipid-formulated siRNA release from endosomes and target gene knockdown. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33:870–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3298.
99. Scott LJ.Givosiran: rst approval. Drugs. 2020;80:335–9. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40265- 020- 01269- 0.
100. Zhong R, et al. Hydrogels for RNA delivery. Nat Mater. 2023;22(7):818–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41563- 023- 01472- w.
101. Semple SC, et al. Rational design of cationic lipids for siRNA delivery. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28:172–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nbt.1602.
102. Mazure NM, etal. HIF-1: master and commander of the hypoxic world. A pharmacological approach to its regulation by siRNAs. Biochem Pharmacol. 2004;68:971–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bcp.2004.04.022.