4.7 Article

A Biomimetic Silk Fibroin/Sodium Alginate Composite Scaffold for Soft Tissue Engineering

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep39477

关键词

-

资金

  1. HongKong, Macao and Taiwan Science & Technology Cooperation Program of China [2015DFH30180]
  2. Key Technology Research Plan of Wuhan Municipality [2014060202010120]
  3. Science and Technology Support Program of Hubei Province [2015BCE022]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31370692]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A cytocompatible porous scaffold mimicking the properties of extracellular matrices (ECMs) has great potential in promoting cellular attachment and proliferation for tissue regeneration. A biomimetic scaffold was prepared using silk fibroin (SF)/sodium alginate (SA) in which regular and uniform pore morphology can be formed through a facile freeze-dried method. The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) studies showed the presence of interconnected pores, mostly spread over the entire scaffold with pore diameter around 54 similar to 532 mu m and porosity 66 similar to 94%. With significantly better water stability and high swelling ratios, the blend scaffolds crosslinked by 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl) carbodiimide (EDC) provided sufficient time for the formation of neo-tissue and ECMs during tissue regeneration. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR), X-ray diffraction (XRD) results confirmed random coil structure and silk I conformation were maintained in the blend scaffolds. What's more, FI-TR spectra demonstrated crosslinking reactions occurred actually among EDC, SF and SA macromolecules, which kept integrity of the scaffolds under physiological environment. The suitable pore structure and improved equilibrium swelling capacity of this scaffold could imitate biochemical cues of natural skin ECMs for guiding spatial organization and proliferation of cells in vitro, indicating its potential candidate material for soft tissue engineering.

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

4.7
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