4.8 Article

Effect of hydrogel porosity on marrow stromal cell phenotypic expression

Journal

BIOMATERIALS
Volume 29, Issue 14, Pages 2193-2202

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.01.006

Keywords

hydrogel; oligo[(polyethylene glycol) fumarate] (OPF); marrow stromal cells; magnetic resonance microscopy; osteogenesis

Funding

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR045871-09, R01 AR45871, R01 AR045871] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIBIB NIH HHS [R01 EB003060, R01 EB003060-05] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study describes investigation of porous photocrosslinked oligo[(polyethylene glycol) fumarate] (OPF) hydrogels as potential matrix for osteoblastic differentiation of marrow stromal cells (MSCs). The porosity and interconnectivity of porous hydrogels were assessed using magnetic resonance microscopy (MRM) as a noninvasive investigative tool that could image the water construct inside the hydrogels at a high-spatial resolution. MSCs were cultured onto the porous hydrogels and cell number was assessed using PicoGreen DNA assay. Our results showed 10% of cells initially attached to the surface of scaffolds. However, cells did not show significant proliferation over a time period of 14 days. MSCs cultured on porous hydrogels had increased alkaline phosphatase activity as well as deposition of calcium, suggesting successful differentiation and maturation to the osteoblastic phenotype. Moreover, continued expression of type I collagen and osteonectin over 14 days confirmed osteoblastic differentiation of MSCs. MRM was also applied to monitor osteogenesis of MSCs on porous hydrogels. MRM images showed porous scaffolds became consolidated with osteogenic progression of cell differentiation. These findings indicate that porous OPF scaffolds enhanced MSC differentiation leading to development of bone-like mineralized tissue. (C) 2008 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