4.6 Article

A mechanically improved virus-based hybrid scaffold for bone tissue regeneration

期刊

RSC ADVANCES
卷 6, 期 60, 页码 55022-55032

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6ra07054j

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea - Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MEST) [NRF-2015R1A2A1A15055305]
  2. Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project, Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs, Republic of Korea [HI15C3000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Appropriate mechanical and outstanding biological properties of biomedical scaffolds are prerequisites to successfully regenerate bone tissues. Here, we designed a hybrid scaffold consisting of microsized core-sheath struts based on chemically conjugated M13 bacteriophage (phage)/alginate and poly(epsilon-caprolactone) (PCL). The filamentous phages were modified with the Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD) sequence and calcium-binding sites. The hybrid scaffold was a mesh-like core (PCL)-sheath (phage/alginate) structure (strut size = 434 +/- 51 mu m, pore size = 495 +/- 23 mu m, with completely interconnected pores). To evaluate the mechanical and in vitro biological properties using osteoblast-like (MG63) cells, we used two controls: pure alginate and RGD-modified alginate (R-A). The scaffolds were analyzed for various mechanical properties and biological activities (tensile property, protein absorption ability, biomineralization, in vitro cell responses, and osteogenic gene expression). The biomineralization and protein absorption ability of the hybrid scaffold were significantly higher than those of the R-A. Furthermore, the proliferation of viable cells and the level of osteogenic gene expression (alkaline phosphatase activity) of the hybrid scaffold using the chemically conjugated phage/alginate were significantly enhanced compared with the control scaffolds. Based on these results, we suggest that the M13 phage/PCL-based hybrid scaffold may have potential as a biomedical scaffold for use in bone tissue regeneration.

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

4.6
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