4.7 Article

Development and Preliminary Testing of Porcine Blood-Derived Endothelial-like Cells for Vascular Tissue Engineering Applications: Protocol Optimisation and Seeding of Decellularised Human Saphenous Veins

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23126633

Keywords

endothelial colony forming cells; cell seeding; endothelium; bioengineering; vascular graft

Funding

  1. British Heart Foundation (BHF) [PG/104/32652]
  2. BHF [IG/14/2/30991]
  3. Medical Research Council (MRC) [MR/L012723/1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study developed a method to isolate porcine endothelial-like cells from blood obtained under clinical conditions and conducted preliminary testing. The derived cells showed similar morphology and marker expression to isolated porcine aortic endothelial cells and remained viable under shear stress.
Functional endothelial cells (EC) are a critical interface between blood vessels and the thrombogenic flowing blood. Disruption of this layer can lead to early thrombosis, inflammation, vessel restenosis, and, following coronary (CABG) or peripheral (PABG) artery bypass graft surgery, vein graft failure. Blood-derived ECs have shown potential for vascular tissue engineering applications. Here, we show the development and preliminary testing of a method for deriving porcine endothelial-like cells from blood obtained under clinical conditions for use in translational research. The derived cells show cobblestone morphology and expression of EC markers, similar to those seen in isolated porcine aortic ECs (PAEC), and when exposed to increasing shear stress, they remain viable and show mRNA expression of EC markers similar to PAEC. In addition, we confirm the feasibility of seeding endothelial-like cells onto a decellularised human vein scaffold with approximately 90% lumen coverage at lower passages, and show that increasing cell passage results in reduced endothelial coverage.

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