4.2 Article

The Stiffness and Structure of Three-Dimensional Printed Hydrogels Direct the Differentiation of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells Toward Adipogenic and Osteogenic Lineages

期刊

TISSUE ENGINEERING PART A
卷 21, 期 3-4, 页码 740-756

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/ten.tea.2014.0231

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mechanical and physicochemical effects of three-dimensional (3D) printable hydrogels on cell behavior are paramount features to consider before manufacturing functional tissues. We hypothesize that besides good printability and cytocompatibility of a supporting hydrogel for the manufacture of individual tissues, it is equally essential to consider beforehand the desired tissue (bone, cartilage, fat). In light of its application, the structure and stiffness of printable hydrogel matrices influence cell geometry, which in turn impacts the differentiation fate. Embedded human mesenchymal stromal cells in printable type I collagen- and chitosan-agarose blends were induced to differentiate toward osteoblasts and adipocytes. Hydrogels' printability in air versus submerged printing in perfluorocarbon was evaluated according to the height, diameter, uniformity, and stability of 3D printed vertical cylinders. Bipotent differentiation within hydrogels was assessed histologically (morphology, cellularity), by immunohistochemistry (vimentin, smooth muscle actin), two-photon microscopy (spatial distribution), and real-time polymerase chain reaction (ALP, BGLAP, OPN, RUNX2, COL 1, aP2, PPAR gamma-2). Agarose and agarose blends revealed the most valid printability properties by generating uniform cylinders with an average height of 4 mm. Osteogenic differentiation was preferably achieved in anisotropic soft collagen-rich substrates, whereas adipogenic differentiation mostly occurred in isotropic stiff agarose-rich matrices. The conjugation of type I collagen to agarose with varying ratios is possibly a suitable bioink for a broad range of 3D printed mesenchymal tissues.

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

4.2
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