4.8 Article

Comparative materials differences revealed in engineered bone as a function of cell-specific differentiation

Journal

NATURE MATERIALS
Volume 8, Issue 9, Pages 763-770

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/NMAT2505

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Rothermere Foundation
  2. National Science and Engineering Research Council Canada
  3. Canadian Centennial Scholarship Fund
  4. Medical Research Council, UK
  5. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/E007627/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Medical Research Council [G0500489] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. EPSRC [EP/E007627/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. MRC [G0500489] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An important aim of regenerative medicine is to restore tissue function with implantable, laboratory-grown constructs that contain tissue-specific cells that replicate the function of their counterparts in the healthy native tissue. It remains unclear, however, whether cells used in bone regeneration applications produce a material that mimics the structural and compositional complexity of native bone. By applying multivariate analysis techniques to micro-Raman spectra of mineralized nodules formed in vitro, we reveal cell-source-dependent differences in interactions between multiple bone-like mineral environments. Although osteoblasts and adult stem cells exhibited bone-specific biological activities and created a material with many of the hallmarks of native bone, the 'bone nodules' formed from embryonic stem cells were an order of magnitude less stiff, and lacked the distinctive nanolevel architecture and complex biomolecular and mineral composition noted in the native tissue. Understanding the biological mechanisms of bone formation in vitro that contribute to cell-source-specific materials differences may facilitate the development of clinically successful engineered bone.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available