4.5 Article

Cyclic Compression Maintains Viability and Induces Chondrogenesis of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Fibrin Gel Scaffolds

期刊

STEM CELLS AND DEVELOPMENT
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 93-102

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/scd.2008.0030

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mechanical loading has long been shown to modulate cartilage-specific extracellular matrix synthesis. With joint motion, cartilage can experience mechanical loading in the form of compressive, tensile or shearing load, and hydrostatic pressure. Recent studies have demonstrated the capacity of unconfined cyclic compression to induce chondrogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cell (hMSC) in agarose culture. However, the use of a nonbiodegradable material such as agarose limits the applicability of these constructs. Of the possible biocompatible materials available for tissue engineering, fibrin is a natural regenerative scaffold, which possesses several desired characteristics including a controllable degradation rate and low immunogenicity. The objective of the present study was to determine the capability of fibrin gels for supporting chondrogenesis of hMSCs under cyclic compression. To optimize the system, three concentrations of fibrin gel (40, 60, and 80 mg/mL) and three different stimulus frequencies (0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 Hz) were used to examine the effects of cyclic compression on viability, proliferation and chondrogenic differentiation of hMSCs. Our results show that cyclic compression (10% strain) at frequencies > 0.5 Hz and gel concentration of 40 mg/mL fibrinogen appears to maintain cellular viability within scaffolds. Similarly, variations in gel component concentration and stimulus frequency can be modified such that a significant chondrogenic response can be achieved by hMSC in fibrin constructs after 8 h of compression spread out over 2 days. This study demonstrates the suitability of fibrin gel for supporting the cyclic compression-induced chondrogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells.

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