4.2 Article

Seeding bioreactor-produced embryonic stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes on different porous, degradable, polyurethane scaffolds reveals the effect of scaffold architecture on cell morphology

Journal

TISSUE ENGINEERING PART A
Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages 369-378

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/tea.2006.0410

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Office Of The Director
  2. EPSCoR [814251] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A successful regenerative therapy to treat damage incurred after an ischemic event in the heart will require an integrated approach including methods for appropriate revascularization of the infarct site, mechanical recovery of damaged tissue, and electrophysiological coupling with native cells. Cardiomyocytes are the ideal cell type for heart regeneration because of their inherent electrical and physiological properties, and cardiomyocytes derived from embryonic stem cells (ESCs) represent an attractive option for tissue-engineering therapies. An important step in developing tissue engineering-based approaches to cardiac cell therapy is understanding how scaffold architecture affects cell behavior. In this work, we generated large numbers of ESC-derived cardiomyocytes in bioreactors and seeded them on porous, 3-dimensional scaffolds prepared using 2 different techniques: electrospinning and thermally induced phase separation (TIPS). The effect of material macro-architecture on the adhesion, viability, and morphology of the seeded cells was determined. On the electrospun scaffolds, cells were elongated in shape, a morphology typical of cultured ESC-derived cardiomyocytes, whereas on scaffolds fabricated using TIPS, the cells retained a rounded morphology. Despite these gross phenotypic and physiological differences, sarcomeric myosin and connexin 43 expression was evident, and contracting cells were observed on both scaffold types, suggesting that morphological changes induced by material macrostructure do not directly correlate to functional differences.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available