4.3 Article

Hyaluronic acid doped-poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)/chitosan/gelatin (PEDOT-HA/Cs/Gel) porous conductive scaffold for nerve regeneration

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.10.029

Keywords

Conducting polymer; Chitosan and gelatin; Porous scaffold; PC12 cells; Nerve regeneration

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30800288]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [DUT16QY08]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conducting polymer, as a smart biomaterial, has been increasingly used to construct tissue engineered scaffold for nerve tissue regeneration. In this study, a novel porous conductive scaffold was prepared by incorporating conductive hyaluronic acid (HA) doped-poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT-HA) nanoparticles into a chitosan/gelatin (Cs/Gel) matrix. The physicochemical characteristics of Cs/Gel scaffold with 0-10 wt PEDOT-HA were analyzed and the results indicated that the incorporation of PEDOT-HA into scaffold increased the electrical and mechanical properties while decreasing the porosity and water absorption. Moreover, in vitro biodegradation of scaffold displayed a declining trend with the PEDOT-HA content increased. About the biocompatibility of conductive scaffold, neuron-like rat phaeochromocytoma (PC12) cells were cultured in scaffold to evaluate cell adhesion and growth. 8% PEDOT-HA/Cs/Gel scaffold had a higher cell adhesive efficiency and cell viability than the other conductive scaffolds. Furthermore, cells in the scaffold with 8 wt PEDOT-HA expressed higher synapse growth gene of GAP43 and SYP compared with Cs/Gel control group. These results suggest that 8%PEDOT-HA/Cs/Gel scaffold is an attractive cell culture conductive substrate which could support cell adhesion, survival, proliferation, and synapse growth for the application in nerve tissue regeneration. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available