Engineered Transdermal Peptide-Recombinant Type III Collagen Hydrogel with Biological Efficacy in Cell Proliferation and Wound Healing

  1. Wansen Tan
  2. Yue Liu
  3. Jingjun Hong

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Collagen, as a major structural protein in the extracellular matrix, plays a crucial role in tissue regeneration; however, traditional collagen sources often suffer from immunogenicity, poor stability, and batch-to-batch variability. In this study, a novel transdermal peptide-recombinant type III collagen hydrogel was developed, which has excellent biocompatibility, thermal stability, and skin repair effects. Transdermal peptide-recombinant type III collagen was expressed and purified by genetic engineering methods, and its potential for biomedical applications was further evaluated. The experimental results showed that the prepared collagen had a high purity (95%) and retained the unique secondary structure of collagen, showing good structural stability at different pH values. Through cell proliferation experiments and mouse wound healing experiments, we verified the superior effect of the collagen hydrogel in promoting wound healing and significantly accelerating wound healing at concentrations as low as 0.2 mg/mL. This achievement provides strong experimental support for its application in clinical skin wound repair.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17855706.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Partly
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Highly appropriate
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Somewhat supported
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Highly appropriate and clear
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Somewhat clearly
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Highly likely
    Would it benefit from language editing? No
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, it's of high quality
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? Yes, as it is

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

    Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

    The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2025.11.22.689886 on bioRxiv