4.2 Article

Intrinsic Vascularization of Recombinant eADF4(C16) Spider Silk Matrices in the Arteriovenous Loop Model

期刊

TISSUE ENGINEERING PART A
卷 25, 期 21-22, 页码 1504-1513

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/ten.tea.2018.0360

关键词

engineered spider silk proteins; angiogenesis; tissue engineering; AV loop; submicron fibers

资金

  1. ELAN-Fonds of the University of Erlangen-Nurnberg [14-08-22-1]
  2. Staedtler Foundation
  3. Forschungsstiftung Medizin at the University Hospital Erlangen
  4. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [326998133-TRR 225]
  5. Xue Hong and Hans-Georg Geis Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The surgically induced angiogenesis by means of arteriovenous (AV) loops represents a powerful method to significantly enhance vascularization of biomaterials. Regarding tissue engineering applications, spider silk is a promising biomaterial with a good biocompatibility and slow biodegradation. This study aims at investigating vascularization as well as de novo tissue formation of fibrous matrices made of electro-spun (ES) or wet-spun (WS) engineered ADF4(C16) spider silks in the rat AV loop model. Either ES or WS spider silk fibrous matrices were filled into Teflon chambers. Intrinsic vascularization was induced by means of an AV loop. After 4 weeks of vascularization, de novo tissue formation and biocompatibility were analyzed. Regardless of their significantly differing fiber diameters, both ES and WS eADF4(C16) fiber matrices displayed a good biocompatibility and initiated de novo tissue formation as well as vessel formation. Both matrices demonstrated partial vascularization originating from the AV loop, with more vessels in spider silk matrices with lower fiber diameters. We were able to demonstrate intrinsic vascularization of spider silk fibrous matrices by means of the AV loop. Moreover, our study indicates that the adjustment of the fiber diameter of engineered spider silks enables new possibilities to optimize vascularization.

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