4.5 Article

Tubular perfusion system culture of human mesenchymal stem cells on poly-L-lactic acid scaffolds produced using a supercritical carbon dioxide-assisted process

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
卷 100A, 期 10, 页码 2563-2572

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.34191

关键词

supercritical fluids; scaffold; PLLA; human mesenchymal stem cells; tissue engineering; bioreactor

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 AR061460]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In vitro human mesenchymal stem cell (hMSC) proliferation and differentiation is dependent on scaffold design parameters and specific culture conditions. In this study, we investigate how scaffold microstructure influences hMSC behavior in a perfusion bioreactor system. Poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) scaffolds are fabricated using supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO2) gel drying. This production method results in scaffolds fabricated with nanostructure. To introduce a microporous structure, porogen leaching was used in addition to this technique to produce scaffolds of average pore size of 100, 250, and 500 mu m. These scaffolds were then cultured in static culture in well plates or dynamic culture in the tubular perfusion system (TPS) bioreactor. Results indicated that hMSCs were able to attach and maintain viability on all scaffolds with higher proliferation in the 250 mu m and 500 mu m pore sizes of bioreactor cultured scaffolds and 100 mu m pore size of statically cultured scaffolds. Osteoblastic differentiation was enhanced in TPS culture as compared to static culture with the highest alkaline phosphatase expression observed in the 250 mu m pore size group. Bone morphogenetic protein-2 was also analyzed and expression levels were highest in the 250 mu m and 500 mu m pore size bioreactor cultured samples. These results demonstrate cellular response to pore size as well as the ability of dynamic culture to enhance these effects. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 100A:2563-2572, 2012.

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