4.5 Article

Electrospun PCL/Gelatin composite fibrous scaffolds: mechanical properties and cellular responses

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMATERIALS SCIENCE-POLYMER EDITION
Volume 27, Issue 9, Pages 824-838

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09205063.2016.1160560

Keywords

Electrospinning; PCL; gelatin; mechanical property; MSCs

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [81271702]
  2. National Basic Research program of China [2012cb619103]
  3. Sichuan University [2015SCU11041]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Electrospinning of hybrid polymer has gained widespread interest by taking advantages of the biological property of the natural polymer and the mechanical property of the synthetic polymer. However, the effect of the blend ratio on the above two properties has been less reported despite the importance to balance these two properties in various tissue engineering applications. To this aim, we investigated the electrospun PCL/Gelatin composite fibrous scaffolds with different blend ratios of 4:1, 2:1, 1:1, 1:2, 1:4, respectively. The morphology of the electrospun samples was observed by SEM and the result showed that the fiber diameter distribution became more uniform with the increase of the gelatin content. The mechanical testing results indicated that the 2:1 PCL/Gelatin sample had both the highest tensile strength of 3.7 MPa and the highest elongation rate of about 90%. Surprisingly, the 2:1 PCL/Gelatin sample also showed the best mesenchymal stem cell responses in terms of attachment, spreading, and cytoskeleton organization. Such correlation might be partly due to the fact that the enhanced mechanical property, an integral part of the physical microenvironment, likely played an important role in regulating the cellular functions. Overall, our results indicated that the PCL/Gelatin sample with the blend ratio of 2:1 was a superior candidate for scaffolds for tissue engineering applications.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available