4.1 Article

Electrospun eri silk fibroin scaffold coated with hydroxyapatite for bone tissue engineering applications

期刊

PROGRESS IN BIOMATERIALS
卷 2, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1186/2194-0517-2-6

关键词

Cell attachment; Hemolysis; Hydroxyapatite scaffold; Swelling ratio; TGA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Natural biomaterials such as collagen, silk fibroin, and chitosan, and synthetic biopolymers such as polylactic acid, polycaprolactone, polyglycolic acid, and their copolymers are being used as scaffold for tissue engineering applications. In the present work, a fibrous mat was electrospun from eri silk fibroin (ESF). A composite of hydroxyapatite (Hap) and the ESF scaffold was prepared by soaking the ESF scaffold in a solution of calcium chloride and then in sodium diammonium phosphate. The average tensile stress of the pure ESF and hydroxyapatite-coated ESF scaffold (ESF-Hap) was found to be 1.84 and 0.378 MPa, respectively. Pure ESF and ESF-Hap scaffolds were evaluated for their characteristics by a themogravimetric analyzer and Fourier transform infrared spectroscope. The crystallinity and thermal stability of the ESF-Hap scaffold were found to be more than that of uncoated eri silk nanofiber scaffold. The water uptake of the pure ESF and ESF-Hap scaffolds was found to be 69% and 340%, respectively, in distilled water as well as phosphate buffer saline. The hemolysis percentage of both scaffolds was less than 5%, which indicate their good blood compatibility. The cytocompatibility studied by 3-(4,5-dimethyl) thiazol-2-yl-2,5-dimethyl tetrazolium bromide assay showed that the scaffold is biocompatible. To assess cell attachment and growth on the scaffold, human mesenchymal stem cells were cultured on the scaffolds. The results from scanning electron microscopy and fluorescent microscopy showed a notable cellular growth and favorable morphological features. Hence, the ESF-Hap scaffold is better suited for cell growth than the pure ESF scaffold.

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

4.1
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