4.5 Article

Fine-tuning scaffolds for tissue regeneration: effects of formic acid processing on tissue reaction to silk fibroin

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/term.257

关键词

vascularization; biocompatibility; immune response; tissue engineering; degradation; silk fibroin

资金

  1. European Commission [500283-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Formic acid (FA) plays a key role in the preparation of silk fibroin (SF) scaffolds from cocoons of Bombyx mori and is used for fibre distribution. In this study, we used a subcutaneous implantation model in Wistar rats to examine SF scaffolds prepared by treating the degummed cocoon with FA for either 30 or 60 min. The tissue reaction and inflammatory response to SF was assessed by qualitative histology at intervals from 3 to 180 days. Additionally, dynamic biomaterial-induced vascularization and biomaterial degradation were quantified using a technique for analysing an image of the entire implanted biomaterial. Varying the FA treatment time led to different scaffold morphologies and resulted in two distinct pen-implant tissue reactions. The 30 min-treated scaffold was integrated into the surrounding tissue beginning at day 3 after implantation and vascularization increased 10-fold from 15 to 180 days, while the scaffold was continuously degraded throughout the first 90 days. In contrast, the 60 min-treated SF scaffold appeared as bulk for the first 90 days after implantation, after which a rapid degradation and vascularization process began. After 180 days, the tissue response was similar for both scaffolds, with eventual formation of a well vascularized connective tissue integrating the SF fibres. This study indicates that by modifying the FA treatment time, the tissue reaction to SF scaffolds can be tailored for different tissue-engineering applications. The tunability and biocompatibility of SF make it an attractive scaffold for exploration in regenerative medicine and clinical tissue engineering. Copyright (C) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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