4.5 Article

Proliferative capacity and osteogenic potential of novel dura mater stem cells on poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.31367

关键词

biomimetic material; bone regeneration; bone tissue engineering; plasticity; dura mater

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [K01 AR052352, AR-052352-01A1, K01 AR052352-01A1] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCR NIH HHS [R01 DE010369, R01 DE010369-05, DE-010369-08] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [T32 GM-008715-03, T32 GM008715, T32 GM008715-08] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rational design of biomimetic structures for the regeneration of damaged or missing tissue is a fundamental principle of tissue engineering. Multiple variables must be optimized, ranging from the scaffold type to the selection and properties of implanted cell(s). In this study, the osteogenic potential of a novel stem cell was analyzed on biodegradable poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) biomaterials as a step toward creating new cell-materials constructs for bony regeneration. Dura mater stem cells (DSCs), isolated from rat dura mater, were evaluated and compared to bone marrow stem cells (BMSCs) for proliferative and differentiative properties in vitro. Experiments were carried out on both tissue culture plastic (TCP) and 2D planar films of PLGA. Proliferation of DSCs on both TCP and PLGA films increased over 21 days. Positive fold inductions in all five bone marker genes were observed at days 7, 14, 21 in all experimental samples compared with day 0 controls. DSCs demonstrated greater cell coverage and enhanced matrix staining on 2D PLGA films when compared with BMSCs. These cells can be isolated and expanded in culture and can subsequently attach, proliferate, and differentiate on both TCP and PLGA films to a greater extent than BMSCs. This suggests that DSCs are promising for cell-based bone tissue engineering therapies, particularly those applications involving regeneration of cranial bones. (c) 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据