4.3 Article

Evaluation of the potential of chimeric spidroins/poly(L-lactic-co-ε-caprolactone) (PLCL) nanofibrous scaffolds for tissue engineering

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2020.110752

关键词

Electrospinning; Tissue engineering; Spidroins; PLCL; Nanofibrous scaffolds

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31570721]
  2. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [19ZR1471000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a novel type of chimeric spider silk proteins (spidroins) NTW1-4CT was blended with poly(L-lactic-co-epsilon-caprolactone) (PLCL) to obtain nanofibrous scaffolds via electrospinning. Spidroins are composed of a Nterminal module (NT) from major ampullate spidroins, a C-terminal module (CT) from minor ampullate spidroins and 1-4 repeat modules (W) from aciniform spidroins. Physical characteristics and structures of NTW1-4CT/PLCL (25/75, w/w) blend scaffolds were carried out by scanning electron microscope (SEM), water contact angles measurements, Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy and tensile mechanical tests. Results showed that blending with spidroins decreased diameters of nanofibers and increased porosity and wettability of scaffolds. Additionally, chimeric spidroins undergone a similar structural transition in electrospinning process as with the formation process of native and artificial spider silks from other spidroins. With amounts of W modules increasing, the tensile strength and elongation of blend scaffolds were also increased. Particularly, NTW4CT/PLCL (25/75) scaffolds revealed much higher breaking stress than pure PLCL scaffolds. In vitro experiments, human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) cultured on NTW4CT/PLCL (25/75) scaffolds displayed significantly higher activity of proliferation and adhesion than on pure PLCL scaffolds. All results suggested that chimeric spidroins/PLCL, especially NTW4CT/PLCL (25/75) blend nanofibrous scaffolds had promising potential for vascular 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

4.3
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