3.9 Article

Regaining chondrocyte phenotype in thermosensitive gel culture

Journal

ANATOMICAL RECORD
Volume 263, Issue 4, Pages 336-341

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/ar.1114

Keywords

thermosensitive polymer; chondrocytes; cell culture

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chondrocyte tissue engineering continues to be a challenging problem, When chondrocytes are duplicated in vitro, it is imperative to obtain an adequate number of cells of optimal phenotype. A temperature-sensitive polymer gel, a copolymer of poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) and acrylic acid (PNiPAAm-co-Aac), has the ability of gelling at 37 degreesC (the lower critical solution temperature, LCST) or above and liquefying below that temperature (Vernon and Gutowska, Macromol. Symp. 1996;109:155-167). The hypothesis of this study was that chondrocytes could (1) duplicate in the copolymer gel; (2) regain their chondrocyte phenotype; and (3) be easily recovered from the gel by simply lowering the temperature below 37 degreesC. Chondrocytes from adult rabbit scapular cartilage were harvested and cultured in a monolayer culture until confluency (approximately 2 weeks). Next, the cells were harvested and seeded into the copolymer gel and cultured for 2-4 weeks. The phenotype of the cultured cells was then characterized. Two groups of control cultures, monolayer and agarose gel, were used to compare their ability to maintain chondrocyte phenotype. The results showed that chondrocytes isolated from rabbit scapula can re-express chondrocyte phenotype in agarose culture and polymer gel culture but not in monolayer culture. Also, cultured chondrocytes can be easily recovered from polymer gel culture by simply lowering the temperature. This new in vitro method of chondrocyte culture is recommended for chondrocyte propagation and regaining chondrocyte phenotype before cell seeding or transplantation. Anat Rec 263:336-341,2001. (C) 2001 Wiley-Liss,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

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available