4.7 Article

Biofabrication of chitosan/chitosan nanoparticles/polycaprolactone transparent membrane for corneal endothelial tissue engineering

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-86340-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Grant Committee from the National Institutes for Medical Research Development (NIMAD), Tehran, Iran [963951]
  2. Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A biodegradable transparent scaffold for culturing corneal endothelial cells was constructed by incorporating chitosan nanoparticles into chitosan/polycaprolactone membranes. The scaffold showed improved transparency and surface wettability, was non-toxic to cells, promoted cell proliferation, and was suitable for corneal endothelial regeneration.
We aimed to construct a biodegradable transparent scaffold for culturing corneal endothelial cells by incorporating chitosan nanoparticles (CSNPs) into chitosan/polycaprolactone (PCL) membranes. Various ratios of CSNP/PCL were prepared in the presence of constant concentration of chitosan and the films were constructed by solvent casting method. Scaffold properties including transparency, surface wettability, FTIR, and biocompatibility were examined. SEM imaging, H&E staining, and cell count were performed to investigate the HCECs adhesion. The phenotypic maintenance of the cells during culture was investigated by flow cytometry. Transparency and surface wettability improved by increasing the CSNP/PCL ratio. The CSNP/PCL 50/25, which has the lowest WCA, showed comparable transparency with human acellular corneal stroma. The scaffold was not cytotoxic and promoted the HCECs proliferation as evaluated by MTT assay. Cell counting, flow cytometry, SEM, and H&E results showed appropriate attachment of HCECs to the scaffold which formed a compact monolayer. The developed scaffold seems to be suitable for use in corneal endothelial regeneration in terms of transparency and biocompatibility.

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