4.8 Article

In vitro evaluation of electrospun silk fibroin scaffolds for vascular cell growth

Journal

BIOMATERIALS
Volume 29, Issue 14, Pages 2217-2227

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.01.022

Keywords

silk; electrospinning; endothelial cells; smooth muscle cells; vascular

Funding

  1. NIBIB NIH HHS [P41 EB002520, P41 EB002520-05] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [P41] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Human aortic endothelial (HAEC) and human coronary artery smooth muscle cell (HCASMC) responses on electrospun silk fibroin scaffolds were studied to evaluate potential for vascular tissue engineering. Cell proliferation studies supported the utility of this biomaterial matrix by both HAECs and HCASMCs. Alignment and elongation of HCASMCs on random non-woven nanofibrous silk scaffolds was observed within 5 days after seeding based on SEM and confocal microscopy. Short cord-like structures formed from HAECs on the scaffolds by day 4, and a complex interconnecting network of capillary tubes with identifiable lumens was demonstrated by day 7. The preservation of cell phenotype on the silk fibroin scaffolds was confirmed by the presence of cell-specific markers, including CD 146, VE-cadherin, PECAM-1 and vWF for HAECs, and SM-MHC2 and SM-actin for HCASMCs at both protein and transcription levels using immunocytochemistry and real-time RT-PCR, respectively. Formation of ECM was also demonstrated for the HCASMCs, based on the quantification of collagen type I expression at protein and transcription levels. The results indicate a favorable interaction between vascular cells and electrospun silk fibroin scaffolds. When these results are factored into the useful mechanical properties and slow degradability of this protein biomaterial matrix, potential utility in tissue-engineered blood vessels can be envisioned. (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