4.6 Article

A Three-Dimensional Engineered Artery Model for In Vitro Atherosclerosis Research

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079821

关键词

-

资金

  1. Zurich Integrative Human Physiology (ZIHP)
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [310030-143992, 31003A-130836/I, 320030-122273]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [31003A_130836, 320030-122273, 310030_143992] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pathogenesis of atherosclerosis involves dysfunctions of vascular endothelial cells and smooth muscle cells as well as blood borne inflammatory cells such as monocyte-derived macrophages. In vitro experiments towards a better understanding of these dysfunctions are typically performed in two-dimensional cell culture systems. However, these models lack both the three-dimensional structure and the physiological pulsatile flow conditions of native arteries. We here describe the development and initial characterization of a tissue engineered artery equivalent, which is composed of human primary endothelial and smooth muscle cells and is exposed to flow in vitro. Histological analyses showed formation of a dense tissue composed of a tight monolayer of endothelial cells supported by a basement membrane and multiple smooth muscle cell layers. Both low (LDL) and high density lipoproteins (HDL) perfused through the artery equivalent were recovered both within endothelial cells and in the sub-endothelial intima. After activation of the endothelium with either tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF alpha) or LDL, monocytes circulated through the model were found to adhere to the activated endothelium and to transmigrate into the intima. In conclusion, the described tissue engineered human artery equivalent model represents a significant step towards a relevant in vitro platform for the systematic assessment of pathogenic processes in atherosclerosis independently of any systemic factors.

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

4.6
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