Diabetic cornea wounds produce significantly weaker electric signals that may contribute to impaired healing

Yunyun Shen, Trisha Pfluger, Fernando Ferreira, Jiebing Liang, Manuel F Navedo, Qunli Zeng, Brian Reid, Min Zhao

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

16 Scopus citations


Wounds naturally produce electric signals which serve as powerful cues that stimulate and guide cell migration during wound healing. In diabetic patients, impaired wound healing is one of the most challenging complications in diabetes management. A fundamental gap in knowledge is whether diabetic wounds have abnormal electric signaling. Here we used a vibrating probe to demonstrate that diabetic corneas produced significantly weaker wound electric signals than the normal cornea. This was confirmed in three independent animal models of diabetes: db/db, streptozotocin-induced and mice fed a high-fat diet. Spatial measurements illustrated that diabetic cornea wound currents at the wound edge but not wound center were significantly weaker than normal. Time lapse measurements revealed that the electric currents at diabetic corneas lost the normal rising and plateau phases. The abnormal electric signals correlated significantly with impaired wound healing. Immunostaining suggested lower expression of chloride channel 2 and cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator in diabetic corneal epithelium. Acute high glucose exposure significantly (albeit moderately) reduced electrotaxis of human corneal epithelial cells in vitro, but did not affect the electric currents at cornea wounds. These data suggest that weaker wound electric signals and impaired electrotaxis may contribute to the impaired wound healing in diabetes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number26525
JournalScientific Reports
StatePublished - Jun 10 2016

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General


Dive into the research topics of 'Diabetic cornea wounds produce significantly weaker electric signals that may contribute to impaired healing'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this