4.8 Article

The preparation and characterization of polycaprolactone/graphene oxide biocomposite nanofiber scaffolds and their application for directing cell behaviors

期刊

CARBON
卷 95, 期 -, 页码 1039-1050

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2015.09.011

关键词

Polycaprolactone; Graphene oxide; Electrospinning; Biocomposite nanofiber scaffolds; Cell behaviors; Tissue engineering

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2012CB619100]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51232002, 51502095]
  3. 111 Project [B13039]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biocomposite nanofiber scaffolds of polycaprolactone (PCL) with different graphene oxide (GO) concentrations were prepared using electrospinning technology. The successful incorporation of GO nanosheets into PCL polymer nanofibers improved the thermal and mechanical properties of the nanofibers because of the intrinsic properties developed due to the interactions of GO and PCL. In order to estimate the biocompatibility of PCL/GO composite scaffolds, mouse marrow mesenchymal stem cells (mMSCs) and low-differentiated rat pheochromocytoma (PC12-L) cells were cultured. Initial adhesion and spreading of the mMSCs and PC12-L cells on PCL/GO composite scaffolds with moderate addition of GO (0.3 and 0.5 wt%) were significantly superior to those on pure PCL scaffolds, and the cells exhibited typical fibroblast- and neuron-like morphologies with obvious pseudopods and mature appearance, respectively. A small amount of GO did not restrain the proliferation and viability of the mMSCs and PC12-L cells, which indicated appreciable cell affinity of GO. Moreover, the hybridization of GO nanosheets and PCL polymer dramatically enhanced the differentiation of the mMSCs and PC12-L cells into osteo- and neuro-like cells, respectively. All these results suggest that PCL/GO composite nanofibers could be a promising alternative material as biocompatible scaffolds for tissue engineering. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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