4.7 Article

Electrospun SF/PLCL nanofibrous membrane: a potential scaffold for retinal progenitor cell proliferation and differentiation

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep14326

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundations of China [81070737, 31300810]
  2. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai [13DZ0500303, 14JC1493103, 14DZ0510202, 124119a9300]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Biocompatible polymer scaffolds are promising as potential carriers for the delivery of retinal progenitor cells (RPCs) in cell replacement therapy for the repair of damaged or diseased retinas. The primary goal of the present study was to investigate the effects of blended electrospun nanofibrous membranes of silk fibroin (SF) and poly(L-lactic acid-co-epsilon-caprolactone) (PLCL), a novel scaffold, on the biological behaviour of RPCs in vitro. To assess the cell-scaffold interaction, RPCs were cultured on SF/PLCL scaffolds for indicated durations. Our data revealed that all the SF/PLCL scaffolds were thoroughly cytocompatible, and the SF: PLCL (1:1) scaffolds yielded the best RPC growth. The in vitro proliferation assays showed that RPCs proliferated more quickly on the SF: PLCL (1: 1) than on the other scaffolds and the control. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and immunocytochemistry analyses demonstrated that RPCs grown on the SF: PLCL (1: 1) scaffolds preferentially differentiated toward retinal neurons, including, most interestingly, photoreceptors. In summary, we demonstrated that the SF: PLCL (1: 1) scaffolds can not only markedly promote RPC proliferation with cytocompatibility for RPC growth but also robustly enhance RPCs' differentiation toward specific retinal neurons of interest in vitro, suggesting that SF: PLCL (1: 1) scaffolds may have potential applications in retinal cell replacement therapy in the future.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available