4.7 Article

Alginate-magnetic short nanofibers 3D composite hydrogel enhances the encapsulated human olfactorymucosa stem cells bioactivity for potential nerve regeneration application

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.11.199

关键词

Alginate; Magnetic short nanofiber; Human olfactory mucosa stem cell; Cell encapsulation; Neural differentiation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study developed alginate hydrogels incorporating magnetic short nanofibers for encapsulation of OE-MSCs, which showed improved cell viability and enhanced proliferation rate.
The design of 3D hydrogel constructs to elicit highly controlled cell response is a major field of interest in developing tissue engineering. The bioactivity of encapsulated cells inside pure alginate hydrogel is limited by its relatively inertness. Combining short nanofibers within a hydrogel serves as a promising method to develop a cell friendly environment mimicking the extracellular matrix. In this paper, we fabricated alginate hydrogels incorporating different magnetic short nanofibers (M.SNFs) content for olfactory ecto-mesenchymal stem cells (OE-MSCs) encapsulation. Wet-electrospun gelatin and superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) nano-composite nanofibers were chopped using sonication under optimized conditions and subsequently embedded in alginate hydrogels. The storage modulus of hydrogel without M.SNFs as well as with 1 and 5 mg/mL of M. SNFs were in the range of nerve tissue. For cell encapsulation, OE-MSCs were used as a new hope for neuronal regeneration due to their neural crest origin. Resazurin analyses and LIVE/DEAD staining confirmed that the composite hydrogels containing M.SNFs can preserve the cell viability after 7 days. Moreover, the proliferation rate was enhanced in M.SNF/hydrogels compared to alginate hydrogel. The presence of SPIONs in the short nanofibers can accelerate neural-like differentiation of OE-MSCs rather than the sample without SPIONs. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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