4.2 Article

Endothelial Network Formation Within Human Tissue-Engineered Skeletal Muscle

期刊

TISSUE ENGINEERING PART A
卷 21, 期 19-20, 页码 2548-2558

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/ten.tea.2015.0093

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Fund KU Leuven [CREA/12/034]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The size of in vitro engineered skeletal muscle tissue is limited due to the lack of a vascular network in vitro. In this article, we report tissue-engineered skeletal muscle consisting of human aligned myofibers with interspersed endothelial networks. We extend our bioartificial muscle (BAM) model by coculturing human muscle progenitor cells with human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) in a fibrin extracellular matrix (ECM). First, the optimal medium conditions for coculturing myoblasts with HUVECs were determined in a fusion assay. Endothelial growth medium proved to be the best compromise for the coculture, without affecting the myoblast fusion index. Second, both cell types were cocultured in a BAM maintained under tension to stimulate myofiber alignment. We then tested different total cell numbers containing 50% HUVECs and found that BAMs with a total cell number of 2x10(6) resulted in well-aligned and densely packed myofibers while allowing for improved interspersed endothelial network formation. Third, we compared different myoblast-HUVEC ratios. Including higher numbers of myoblasts improved endothelial network formation at lower total cell density; however, improvement of network characteristics reached a plateau when 1x10(6) or more myoblasts were present. Finally, addition of Matrigel to the fibrin ECM did not enhance overall myofiber and endothelial network formation. Therefore, in our BAM model, we suggest the use of a fibrin extracellular matrix containing 2x10(6) cells of which 50-70% are muscle cells. Optimizing these coculture conditions allows for a physiologically more relevant muscle model and paves the way toward engineering of larger in vitro muscle constructs.

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