4.7 Article

Bacterial Cellulose As a Support for the Growth of Retinal Pigment Epithelium

期刊

BIOMACROMOLECULES
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 1341-1351

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.biomac.5b00129

关键词

-

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, Portugal) [SERH/BD/63578/2009, SFRH/BD/64901/2009, SFRH/BPD/64958/2009, SFRH/BPD/63148/2009]
  2. QREN, FEDER
  3. [PEst-OE/EQB/LA0004/2013]
  4. [PEst-OE/EQB/LA0023/2013]
  5. [PTDC/BBB-BQB/2450/2012]
  6. [RECI/BBB-EBI/0179/2012]
  7. [FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-027462]
  8. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/64901/2009] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The feasibility of bacterial cellulose (BC) as a novel substrate for retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) culture was evaluated. Thin (41.6 +/- 2.2 mu m of average thickness) and heat-dried BC substrates were surface-modified via acetylation and polysaccharide adsorption, using chitosan and carboxymethyl cellulose. All substrates were characterized according to their surface chemistry, wettability, energy, topography, and also regarding their permeability, dimensional stability, mechanical properties, and endotoxin content. Then, their ability to promote RPE cell adhesion and proliferation in vitro was assessed. All surface-modified BC substrates presented similar permeation coefficients with solutes of up to 300 kDa. Acetylation of BC decreased its swelling and the amount of endotoxins. Surface modification of BC greatly enhanced the adhesion and proliferation of RPE cells. All samples showed similar stress-strain behavior; BC and acetylated BC showed the highest elastic modulus, but the latter exhibited a slightly smaller tensile strength and elongation at break as compared to pristine BC. Although similar proliferation rates were observed among the modified substrates, the acetylated ones showed higher initial cell adhesion. This difference may be mainly due to the moderately hydrophilic surface obtained after acetylation.

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