Fig. 3: In vitro pro-repair, anti-inflammatory and antibacterial properties of BT-dNO@Gel bandage.

a, b Representative live/dead staining images (a) and quantitative analysis of live/dead ratio (b) of HUVECs after different treatments. c, d Representative migration images (c) and relative quantification (d) of HUVECs after different treatments for 24 h and 48 h (Scale bar: 200 µm). e–g Representative images (e) and quantitative analysis of total length (f) and mesh numbers (g) representing the tube formation ability of HUVECs after different treatments. h Flow cytometry analysis of macrophage polarization after different treatments. i Relative quantification of the ratio of M2- to M1-like macrophages. j SEM images of S. aureus treated by the representative formulations for 4 h at 37 °C. The arrows showed the membrane rupture with cytoplasm outflow. Representative images were from n = 3 independent experiments. k, l Confocal images (k) and relative quantification (l) of S. aureus stained with O11 after different treatments. m, n Representative photographs of S. aureus CFUs (m) and quantitative analysis of bacterial survival rates (n) after different treatments. o Representative S. aureus live/dead staining images after different treatments. Live bacteria stained with SYTO 9 (green) and dead bacteria stained with PI (red), respectively. p Protein leakage from S. aureus after different treatments. G1, Control; G2, LIFU; G3, Gel; G4, BT@Gel; G5, BT@Gel+LIFU; G6, BT-dNO@Gel+LIFU. Data were presented as mean ± SD (n = 3 biologically independent samples). Statistical significance was determined using a one-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison analysis. ns, not significant, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 and ****P < 0.0001. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.