Analysis of the microbiota of an experimental infected wound

   Skin wounds are common and represent a major public health and economic problem due to the risk of complications and significant negative impact on patients’ quality of life. The wound healing process involves the interaction of multiple skin cells, immune cells, blood cellular components, growth factors and cytokines. However, external factors such as the skin microbiota may also play an important role in wound healing. Recent studies have shown interactions between different types of microorganisms, as well as between microorganisms and the host immune system in the wound environment.

   The aim of the study: to analyze the microbiota and determine its correlation with the pH of the wound environment using an experimental infected wound as an example.

   Material and methods. In an experiment on 60 Wistar rats, in which an infected wound was modeled, its microbiota was studied by mass spectrometry of microbial markers using a gas chromatograph with a «Maestro» mass-selective detector, the pH of the wound surface was also measured.

   Results and discussion. The microbiota of the infected wound consisted of an association of 26 genera and individual species of microorganisms. Gram-positive bacteria remained dominant throughout the entire experiment; more than 70 % of the total number of microorganisms were strict anaerobes. A strong positive correlation was found between 18 genera of microorganisms, as well as a relationship between the pH of the wound environment and the level of wound contamination.

   Conclusions. When choosing agents for local treatment of infected wounds, it should be taken into account that the wound microbiota includes gram-positive and gram-negative aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, as well as microscopic fungi. Therefore, drugs not only should have a bactericidal effect on aerobic bacteria, as the most common cause of wound infection, but also be effective against anaerobic bacteria and exhibit fungicidal activity. The data regarding the correlation between pH and the level of wound contamination can be used to monitor the wound process.

1. Yudin S.M., Egorova A.M., Makarov V.V. Analysis of human microbiota. Russian and foreign experience. Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal prikladnykh i fundamental’nykh issledovaniy = International Journal of Applied and Basic Research. 2018;11(1):175–180. [In Russian].

2. Olsson M., Jarbrink K., Divakar U., Bajpai R., Upton Z., Schmidtchen A., Car J. The humanistic and economic burden of chronic wounds : A systematic review. Wound Repair Regen. 2019;27(1):114–125. doi: 10.1111/wrr.12683

3. Wolcott R., Sanford N., Gabrilska R., Oates J.L., Wilkinson J.E., Rumbaugh K.P. Microbiota is a primary cause of pathogenesis of chronic wounds. J. Wound Care. 2016;25(10):33–43. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2016.25. Sup10.S33

4. Yarets Yu., Slavnikov I., Dundarov Z. Microbiota of acute and chronic wounds with respect to clinical condition and the stage of infection process. Khirurgiya. Vostochnaya Yevropa = Surgery. Eastern Europe. 2022;11(3):329–344. [In Russian]. doi: 10.34883/PI.2022.11.3.014

5. Sukhoparova E.P., Zinoviev E.V., Khrustaleva I.E., Knyazeva E.S. Prediction of the complicated wound process in overweight patients depending on the composition of the intestinal microbiota. Vestnik eksperimental’noy i klinicheskoy khirurgii = Journal of Experimental and Clinical Surgery. 2023;16(1):10–17. [In Russian]. doi: 10.18499/2070-478X-2023-16-1-10-17

6. Fedyanin S.D. Influence of the combined use of septomyrin and chlorhexidineon bacterial load of purulent wounds. Problemy zdorov’ya i ekologii = Health and Environment Issues. 2021;18(1):35–40. [In Russian]. doi: 10.51523/2708-6011.2021-18-1-5

7. Legonkova O.A., Korotaeva A.I., Stafford V.V., Ogannisyan A.S., Terekhova R.P. Aerogels’ biosafety assessment in local treatment of purulent wounds. Voprosy biologicheskoy, meditsinskoy i farmatsevticheskoy khimii = Problems of Biological, Medical and Pharmaceutical Chemistry. 2021;24(5):38–45. [In Russian]. doi: 10.29296/25877313-2021-05-05

8. Ostroushko A.P., Glukhov А.А., Andreev A.A., Vecherkin V.A., Shishkina V.V., Laptiyova A.Yu., Lobas S.V., Sazhnev D.I., Shmarin A.A., Mikulich E.V., Boyev S.N. Flow sorption debridement of aseptic and purulent soft tissue wounds. International Journal of Biomedicine. 2022;12(1):49–54. doi: 10.21103/Article12(1)_OA6

9. Uberoi A., McCready-Vangi A., Grice E.A. The wound microbiota: microbial mechanisms of impaired wound healing and infection. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2024;22(8):507–521. doi: 10.1038/s41579-024-01035-z

10. Zielinska M., Pawlowska A., Orzel A., Sulej L., Muzyka-Placzynska K., Baran A., Filipecka-Tyczka D., Pawlowska P., Nowinska A., Boguslawska J., Scholz A. Wound microbiota and its impact on wound healing. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023;24(24):17318. doi: 10.3390/ijms242417318

11. Xu Z., Hsia H.C. The Impact of microbial communities on wound healing : a review. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2018;81(1):113–123. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001450

12. Canchy L., Kerob D., Demessant A., Amici J. Wound healing and microbiome, an unexpected relationship. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2023;37(Suppl. 3):7–15. doi: 10.1111/jdv.18854