4.7 Article

Tergitol Based Decellularization Protocol Improves the Prerequisites for Pulmonary Xenografts: Characterization and Biocompatibility Assessment

期刊

POLYMERS
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/polym15040819

关键词

decellularization; Tergitol; tissue engineering; RVOTO; congenital heart disease; biocompatibility; mesenchymal stem cells; cytotoxicity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Right ventricle outflow tract obstruction (RVOTO), accounting for about 15% of congenital heart diseases, often requires pulmonary valve replacement. This study investigated the use of a new detergent (Tergitol) to decellularize porcine pulmonary valves for scaffold production. The decellularized scaffolds were evaluated for structural integrity, and their compatibility with mesenchymal stem cells was assessed. Tergitol efficiently removed nuclear material while preserving the matrix's structural proteins, making it a potential alternative to Triton X-100.
Right ventricle outflow tract obstruction (RVOTO) is a congenital pathological condition that contributes to about 15% of congenital heart diseases. In most cases, the replacement of the right ventricle outflow in pediatric age requires subsequent pulmonary valve replacement in adulthood. The aim of this study was to investigate the extracellular matrix scaffold obtained by decellularization of the porcine pulmonary valve using a new detergent (Tergitol) instead of Triton X-100. The decellularized scaffold was evaluated for the integrity of its extracellular matrix (ECM) structure by testing for its biochemical and mechanical properties, and the cytotoxicity/cytocompatibility of decellularized tissue was assessed using bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. We concluded that Tergitol could remove the nuclear material efficiently while preserving the structural proteins of the matrix, but without an efficient removal of the alpha-gal antigenic epitope. Therefore, Tergitol can be used as an alternative detergent to replace the Triton X-100.

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