Investigation of the Regenerative Activity of Sprays Derived from Human Umbilical Cord Wharton’s Jelly in an Experimental Study

INTRODUCTION. Implementation of the state strategy “Pharma 2030” requires the development of high-tech domestic drugs, including acellular tissue-engineered composites characterized by high efficacy and low immunogenicity. As part of this effort, a regenerative spray for the treatment of grade IIb–IIIa burn wounds is being developed and its pharmacological properties are being studied. This spray is a tissue-engineered composite of acellular human umbilical cord biomaterial and an antimicrobial component.
AIM. To evaluate the regenerative activity of experimental spray formulations derived from human umbilical cord Wharton’s jelly in a rat burn model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. The developed spray formulations contained a biodegradable lyophilized hydrolysate of the acellular matrix of human umbilical cord Wharton’s jelly and antibacterial agents: formulation No. 1 included gentamicin sulfate, formulation No. 2 included neomycin sulfate. Olazol aerosol (Altayvitamins, Russia) was used as the reference drug. The study was performed on a deep burn model in adult rats. The animals were divided into groups that received treatment with the experimental sprays, the reference drug, a control group (no treatment), and a group of intact animals. Regenerative activity was assessed by measuring the wound defect area and by determining blood leukocyte count, C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration, and epidermal growth factor (EGF) level.
RESULTS. By day 28 of observation, both spray formulations showed a statistically significant advantage over the reference drug in reducing the burn wound area: formulation No. 1 by 66%, formulation No. 2 by 20%. Treatment with the experimental formulations and the reference drug resulted in a decrease in leukocyte count and CRP level to values comparable with those of intact animals. The blood EGF concentration increased significantly in the experimental groups: with formulation No. 1 by 104.0% and with formulation No. 2 by 76.5% compared with the control group, and by 106.5% and 78.8%, respectively, compared with the intact animal group.
CONCLUSIONS. The experimental spray formulations derived from human umbilical cord Wharton’s jelly demonstrate high regenerative activity, significantly accelerating the healing of deep burn wounds and reducing the severity of the inflammatory response in rats. The results support the feasibility of further preclinical and clinical investigation of these compositions, with a view to their introduction into clinical combustiology.

1. Ponomareva DV. Legal regime of circulation of high-tech medicinal products: Experience of interstate integration associations. Lex Genetica. 2025;4(2):28–46 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17803/lexgen-2025-4-2-28-46

2. Liang R, Pan R, He L, et al. Decellularized extracellular matrices for skin wound treatment. Materials (Basel). 2025;18(12):2752. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma18122752

3. Lin Z, Nica C, Sculean A, Asparuhova MB. Enhanced wound healing potential of primary human oral fibroblasts and periodontal ligament cells cultured on four different porcine-derived collagen matrices. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(17):3819. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13173819

4. Li T, Javed R, Ao Q. Xenogeneic decellularized extracellular matrix-based biomaterials for peripheral nerve repair and regeneration. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2021;19(12):2152–63. https://doi.org/10.2174/1570159X18666201111103815

5. Wermker K, Hogrebe M, Gellrich NC, et al. Covering skin defects with a xenogeneic collagen matrix in comparison with a skin graft — A multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2024;52(1):101–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2023.10.009

6. Chintalapudi N, Rice OM, Hsu JR. The use of xenogenic dermal matrices in the context of open extremity wounds: where and when to consider? OTA Int. 2023;6(4 Suppl): e237. https://doi.org/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000237

7. Özdemir BH. Navigating immunological barriers in xenotransplantation: recent advances and promising strides. Exp Clin Transplant. 2025;23(6):421–30. https://doi.org/10.6002/ect.2023.0351

8. Ko J, Lee G, Kim HW, et al. Current status of xenotransplantation from an immunobiological standpoint. Clin Transplant Res. 2025;39(2):97–115. https://doi.org/10.4285/ctr.24.0065

9. Tovpeko DV, Kondratenko AA, Okolitenko MS, et al. Evaluation of structural and biological characteristics of decellularized Wharton's jelly from human umbilical cord. Problems of Biological, Medical and Pharmaceutical Chemistry. 2025;28(8):45–56 (In Russ.). EDN: TVEKSI

10. Rusnak MV, Kalyuzhnaya LI, Kondratenko AA, Topeko DV. Analysis of the composition of hydrogel from human umbilical cord extracellular matrix. Genes & Cells. 2022;17(3):199 (In Russ.). EDN: LRCUFH

11. Gupta A, El-Amin SF 3rd, Levy HJ, et al. Umbilical cord-derived Wharton’s jelly for regenerative medi­ cine applications. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15(1):49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-1553-7

12. Li H, et al. From fetal tendon regeneration to adult therapeutic modalities: TGF‑β3 in scarless healing. Regen Med. 2023;18(10):791–800. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2023-0112

13. Leavitt T, Hu MS, Marshall CD, et al. Scarless wound healing: finding the right cells and signals. Cell Tissue Res. 2016;365(3):483–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00441-016-2424-8

14. Kondratenko AA, Tovpeko DV, Kalyuzhnaya LI. Biological effects of a cell-free engineering product from the human umbilical cord. Patogenez. 2022;20(4):53–62 (In Russ.). https:doi.org/10.25557/2310-0435.2022.04.53-62

15. Kalyuzhnaya LI, Volov DA, Chebotarev SV, et al. Experience of using acellular human umbilical cord hydrolyzate in the treatment of patients with deep wounds. Russian Journal of Transplantology and Artificial Organs. 2024;26(S):187 (In Russ.). EDN: KTWFKO

16. Khominets VV, Kalyuzhnaya-Zemlyanaya LI, Kondratenko AA, et al. Method of using cell-free lyophilized human umbilical cord product for wound healing. Patent of the Russian Federation No. 2816034 C1; 2024 (In Russ.). EDN: HFADTH

17. Simonyan EV, Osikov MV, Ageeva AA, et al. Modern aspects of pathophysiology of thermal injury. Modern Problems of Science and Education. 2020;(3):141 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17513/spno.29723

18. Sakharov SP, Kozlov LB, Ivanov VV. The analysis of the microbic landscape of the wound infection at the heavy thermal trauma at children. Fundamental Research. 2013;(9-3):468–71 (In Russ.). EDN: RCHRLZ

19. Özkaçmaz A, Dicle Y, Bayram Y, et al. The distribution and the antimicrobial susceptibility features of microorganisms isolated from the burn wounds: a 10-year retrospective analysis. J Burn Care Res. 2024;45(2):384–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irad158

20. Cooly J, Obaidi N, Dias V, et al. Delivery of topical gentamicin cream via the platform wound device to reduce wound infection — A prospective, controlled, randomized clinical trial. Int Wound J. 2023;20(5):1426–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13998

21. Alekseev AA, Bobrovnikov AE. Local conservative treatment of burns. Moscow: MIA; 2015 (In Russ.). EDN: ZGYOTB

22. Fistal EYa, Soloshenko VV, Fistal NN. Experimental data on the wound process features in a burn wound at combined injuries. Tavricheskiy Mediko-Biologicheskiy Vestnik. 2014;17(4):112–5 (In Russ.). EDN: UCMXZR

23. Pepys MB, Hirschfield GM. C-reactive protein: A critical update. J Clin Invest. 2003;111(12):1805–12. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI18921

24. Guo S, Dipietro LA. Factors affecting wound healing. J Dent Res. 2010;89(3):219–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034509359125