4.0 Article

An Immunopathological Evaluation of the Porcine Cholecyst Matrix as a Muscle Repair Graft in a Male Rat Abdominal Wall Defect Model

Journal

TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 2, Pages 169-183

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0192623317752894

Keywords

biomaterials; safety assessment; immunopathology; irritancy scores; biocompatibility

Funding

  1. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, India, Kerala (TRC) [8144]
  2. Kerala State Council for Science Technology and Environment [1275/2014/KSCSTE]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With the increasing use of animal-based biomaterials for regenerative medical applications, the need for their safety assessment is paramount. A porcine cholecyst-derived scaffold (CDS), intended as a muscle repair graft, prepared by a nondetergent/enzymatic method was engrafted in a rat abdominal wall defect model. Host tissue-scaffold interface samples were collected 2, 8, and 16 weeks postimplantation and evaluated by histopathology, immunohistochemistry, and electron microscopy. The nature of the tissue reaction was compared with those induced by a jejunum-derived scaffold (JDS) prepared by the same method and a commercial-grade small intestinal submucosa (CSIS) scaffold. A study of the immunopathological response in major lymphoid tissues and immunophenotyping for M1 and M2 macrophages was performed at the host tissue-scaffold interface. Further, irritancy scores for CDS and JDS were determined using CSIS as the reference material. Both CDS and JDS appeared to be potential biomaterials for muscle grafts, but the former stimulated a skeletal muscle tissue remodeling response predominated by M2 macrophages. The data support the notion that biomaterials with similar biocompatibility, based on local tissue response on implantation, may cause differential immunogenicity. Additionally, CDS compared to JDS and CSIS was found to be less immunotoxic.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available