4.6 Article

Three-dimensional cell seeding and growth in radial-flow perfusion bioreactor for in vitro tissue reconstruction

Journal

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING
Volume 93, Issue 5, Pages 947-954

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bit.20797

Keywords

perfusion; bioreactor; radial-flow; cell seeding; scaffold

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Radial-flow perfusion bioreactor systems have been designed and evaluated to enable directcell seeding into a three-dimensional (3-D) porous scaffold and subsequent cell culture for in vitro tissue reconstruction. However, one of the limitations of in vitro regeneration is the tissue necrosis that occurs at the central part of the 3-D scaffold. In the present study, tubular poly-(L)-lactic acid (PLLA) porous scaffolds with an optimized pore size and porosity were prepared by the lyophilization method, and the effect of different perfusion conditions on cell seeding and growth were compared with those of the conventional static culture. The medium flowed radially from the lumen toward the periphery of the tubular scaffolds. It was found that cell seeding under a radial-flow perfusion condition of 1.1 mL/cm(2) center dot m in was effective, and that the optimal flow rate for cell growth was 4.0 mL/ cm(2) center dot min. At this optimal rate, the increase in seeded cells in the perfusion culture over a period of 5 days was 7.3-fold greater than that by static culture over the same period. The perfusion cell seeding resulted in a uniform distribution of cells throughout the scaffold. Subsequently, the perfusion of medium and hence the provision of nutrients and oxygen permitted growth and maintenance of the tissue throughout the scaffold. The perfusion seeding/culture system was a much more effective strategy than the conventional system in which cells are seeded under a static condition and cultured in a bioreactor such as a spinner flask. (c) 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available