4.6 Article

Cell-mediated remodeling of biomimetic encapsulating hydrogels triggered by adipogenic differentiation of adipose stem cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF TISSUE ENGINEERING
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2041731416670482

关键词

Adipose stem cells; regenerative medicine; MMP3; Arg-Gly-Asp; poly(ethylene)-glycol hydrogel; biodegradable; biomimetic

资金

  1. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) [DR1-01444, CL1-00521, TB1-01177, TG2-01151]
  2. CIRM Major Facilities Grant [FA1-00616]
  3. University of California-Santa Barbara, Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies from the US Army Research Office [W911NF-09-0001]
  4. National Science Foundation [IIS-0808772, ITR-0331697]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the most common regenerative therapies is autologous fat grafting, which frequently suffers from unexpected volume loss. One approach is to deliver adipose stem cells encapsulated in the engineered hydrogels supportive of cell survival, differentiation, and integration after transplant. We describe an encapsulating, biomimetic poly( ethylene)-glycol hydrogel, with embedded peptides for attachment and biodegradation. Poly(ethylene)-glycol hydrogels containing an Arg-Gly-Asp attachment sequence and a matrix metalloprotease 3/10 cleavage site supported adipose stem cell survival and showed remodeling initiated by adipogenic differentiation. Arg-Gly-Aspmatrix metalloprotease 3/10 cleavage site hydrogels showed an increased number and area of lacunae or holes after adipose stem cell differentiation. Image analysis of adipose stem cells in Arg-Gly-Asp-matrix metalloprotease 3/10 cleavage site hydrogels showed larger Voronoi domains, while cell density remained unchanged. The differentiated adipocytes residing within these newly remodeled spaces express proteins and messenger RNAs indicative of adipocytic differentiation. These engineered scaffolds may provide niches for stem cell differentiation and could prove useful in soft 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