4.8 Article

A comparison of rabbit mesenchymal stem cells and anterior cruciate ligament fibroblasts responses on combined silk scaffolds

Journal

BIOMATERIALS
Volume 29, Issue 10, Pages 1443-1453

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.11.023

Keywords

mesenchymal stem cell; anterior cruciate ligament fibroblast; combined silk scaffold; ligament tissue engineering

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to compare the cellular responses of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) and anterior cruciate ligament fibroblasts (ACLFs) on combined silk scaffolds for ligament tissue engineering application. Rabbit BMSCs and ACLFs were isolated and cultured in vitro for two weeks after seeding on the silk scaffolds. Samples were evaluated and compared for their cellular morphology, proliferation, gene and protein expression of tenascin-C, type I and type III collagen. In addition, the two cell types were transfected with green fluorescent protein (GFP) to trace their fate in the knee joints. Preliminary results comparing cell proliferation indicated that BMSCs proliferated faster than ACLFs. Gene expression of the phenotypic markers measured using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) indicated the transcript levels of BMSCs were significantly increased after two weeks of culture, whereas t hose of ACLFs had no significant difference. The protein levels and localization were determined by western blotting and immunohistochemical staining, the results showed more production of ligament-related extracellular matrix (ECM) by BMSCs as compared to ACLFs. Moreover, 4 weeks postoperatively, more fluorescent cells were presented in BMSC-loaded constructs than in ACLF-loaded constructs. Therefore, based on the cellular response in vitro and in vivo, BMSCs were found to be a better cell source than ACLFs for the further study of ACL tissue engineering. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available