4.2 Article

Porous and Nonporous Nerve Conduits: The Effects of a Hydrogel Luminal Filler With and Without a Neurite-Promoting Moiety

Journal

TISSUE ENGINEERING PART A
Volume 22, Issue 9-10, Pages 818-826

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/ten.tea.2015.0354

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine award [W81XWH-08-2-0034]
  2. US Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity
  3. Center for Military Biomaterials Research (CeMBR) [W81XWH-04-2-0031]
  4. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [EB001046]
  5. New Jersey Center for Biomaterials at Rutgers University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nerve conduits prefilled with hydrogels are frequently explored in an attempt to promote nerve regeneration. This study examines the interplay in vivo between the porosity of the conduit wall and the level of bioactivity of the hydrogel used to fill the conduit. Nerve regeneration in porous (P) or nonporous (NP) conduits that were filled with either collagen only or collagen enhanced with a covalently attached neurite-promoting peptide mimic of the glycan human natural killer cell antigen-1 (m-HNK) were compared in a 5 mm critical size defect in the mouse femoral nerve repair model. Although collagen is a cell-friendly matrix that does not differentiate between neural and nonneural cells, the m-HNK-enhanced collagen specifically promotes axon growth and appropriate motor neuron targeting. In this study, animals treated with NP conduits filled with collagen grafted with m-HNK (CollagenHNK) had the best overall functional recovery, based on a range of histomorphometric observations and parameters of functional recovery. Our data indicate that under some conditions, the use of generally cell friendly fillers such as collagen may limit nerve regeneration. This finding is significant, considering the frequent use of collagen-based hydrogels as fillers of nerve conduits.

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