Review discusses the mechanisms of marine polysaccharide nanofibers in wound healing, highlighting their potential applications and challenges.
Chronic wounds are associated with long-standing inflammation, impaired angiogenesis, oxidative stress, microbial load and defective remodelling of the extracellular matrix, impairing tissue repair. Conventional dressings offer protection and moisture regulation but do not sufficiently address the biological failures. Electrospun nanofibrous wound dressings offer a more active regenerative platform due to their architecture, which resembles the extracellular matrix, allowing cell adhesion and migration and facilitating the localised delivery of therapeutic agents. Marine-derived polysaccharides, such as alginate, chitosan, carrageenan, fucoidan, glycosaminoglycans, and ulvan, are particularly attractive in this area due to their biocompatibility, biodegradability, sustainability, and intrinsic haemostatic, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and immunomodulatory properties. This review critically discusses the mechanistic and translational relevance of marine polysaccharide-based nanofibres in wound healing with a focus on inflammation resolution, polarisation of macrophages, responses of keratinocytes and fibroblasts, angiogenesis, collagen deposition, redox balance and matrix remodelling. Biofabrication strategies, especially electrospinning and related nanofibre-forming strategies, are reviewed from the aspects of scaffold architecture, drug-loading capacity, controlled release, and wound microenvironment modulation. The review also discusses current shortcomings such as heterogeneity in the composition of marine polymers, mechanical fragility, sterilisation and storage issues, scalability, regulatory uncertainty and limited translation from preclinical models to clinical evidence. Overall, marine-derived polysaccharide nanofibers are a promising class of multifunctional wound dressings, but their clinical translation needs stronger standardisation, comparative in vivo evidence, safety validation and manufacturable designs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sharma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: