45 Review Immune Cells in Animal Burn Models 29. Baskaran; Yarmush; Berthiaume. Dynamics of Tissue Neutrophil Sequestration after Cutaneous Burns in Rats. J Surg Res 2000, 93, 88–96. 30. Janicova; Becker; Xu; et al. Severe Traumatic Injury Induces Phenotypic and Functional Changes of Neutrophils and Monocytes. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 4139. 31. Leliefeld; Wessels; Leenen; et al. The Role of Neutrophils in Immune Dysfunction during Severe Inflammation. Crit. Care 2016, 20, 1–9. 32. Mortaz; Alipoor; Adcock; et al. Update on Neutrophil Function in Severe Inflammation. Front. Immunol. 2018, 9, 1–14. 33. Drifte; Dunn-Siegrist; Tissières; et al. Innate Immune Functions of Immature Neutrophils in Patients with Sepsis and Severe Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome. Crit. Care Med. 2013, 41, 820–832. 34. Manley; Keightley; Lieschke. The Neutrophil Nucleus: An Important Influence on Neutrophil Migration and Function. Front. Immunol. 2018, 9, 2867. 35. Yang; Liu; Guo; et al. Investigation and Assessment of Neutrophil Dysfunction Early after Severe Burn Injury. Burns 2021, 47, 1851–1862. 36. Ud-din; Wilgus; Bayat. Mast Cells in Skin Scarring: A Review of Animal and Human Research. Front. Immunol. 2020, 11, 1–9. 37. Weller; Foitzik; Paus; et al. Mast Cells Are Required for Normal Healing of Skin Wounds in Mice. FASEB J. 2006, 20, 2366–2368. 38. Vlig; Boekema; Ulrich. Porcine Models. In Biomaterials for Skin Repair and Regeneration; Elsevier, 2019; pp. 297–330. 39. Kim; Mustoe; Clark. Cutaneous Wound Healing in Aging Small Mammals: A Systematic Review. Wound Repair Regen. 2015, 23, 318–339. 40. Simon; Hollander; McMichael. Evolution of the Immune System in Humans from Infancy to Old Age. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 282, 20143085. 41. Barber; Maass; White; et al. Increasing Percent Burn Is Correlated with Increasing Inflammation in an Adult Rodent Model. Shock 2008, 30, 388–393. 42. Jeschke; Mlcak; Finnerty; et al. Burn Size Determines the Inflammatory and Hypermetabolic Response. Crit. Care 2007, 11, 1–11. 43. du Sert; Hurst; Ahluwalia; et al. The Arrive Guidelines 2.0: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research. PLoS Biol. 2020, 18, 1–12. 44. de Vries; Wever; Avey; et al. The Usefulness of Systematic Reviews of Animal Experiments for the Design of Preclinical and Clinical Studies. ILAR J. 2014, 55, 427–437. 45. Hooijmans; Rovers; De Vries; et al. SYRCLE’s Risk of Bias Tool for Animal Studies. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2014, 14, 1–9. 46. Osborne; Avey; Anestidou; et al. Improving Animal Research Reporting Standards. EMBO Rep. 2018, 19, 1–5. 47. Hao; Nourbakhsh. Recent Advances in Experimental Burn Models. Biology (Basel). 2021, 10, 526. 48. Gómez; Harrington; Chao; et al. Impact of Oral Resuscitation on Circulating and Splenic Leukocytes after Burns. Burns 2020, 46, 567–578. 49. Sun; Wu; Gao; et al. Effect of 200 MEq/L Na+ Hypertonic Saline Resuscitation on Systemic Inflammatory Response and Oxidative Stress in Severely Burned Rats. J. Surg. Res. 2013, 185, 477–484. 50. Hooijmans; IntHout; Ritskes-Hoitinga; et al. Meta-Analyses of Animal Studies: An Introduction of a Valuable Instrument to Further Improve Healthcare. ILAR J. 2014, 55, 418–426. 51. Mestas; Hughes. Of Mice and Not Men: Differences between Mouse and Human Immunology. J. Immunol. 2004, 172, 2731–2738. 52. Tao; Reese. Making Mouse Models That Reflect Human Immune Responses. Trends Immunol. 2017, 38, 181–193. 53. Sellers; Clifford; Treuting; et al. Immunological Variation between Inbred Laboratory Mouse Strains: Points to Consider in Phenotyping Genetically Immunomodified Mice. Vet. Pathol. 2012, 49, 32–43. 54. Leenaars; Hooijmans; van Veggel; et al. A Step-by-Step Guide to Systematically Identify All Relevant Animal Studies. Lab. Anim. 2012, 46, 24–31. 55. Ouzzani; Hammady; Fedorowicz; et al. Rayyan-a Web and Mobile App for Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 1–10. 56. Schneider; Rasband; Eliceiri. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 Years of Image Analysis. Nat. Methods 2012, 9, 671–675. 2
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw