4.5 Article

Engineering bone-like tissue in vitro using human bone marrow stem cells and silk scaffolds

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.30117

关键词

silk; stem cells; osteogenic; hydroxyapatite; tissue engineering

资金

  1. NIBIB NIH HHS [R01EB003210-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCR NIH HHS [R01DE13405-04] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Porous biodegradable silk scaffolds and human bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) were used to engineer bone-like tissue in vitro. Two different scaffolds with the same microstructure were studied: collagen (to assess the effects of fast degradation) and silk with covalently bound RGD sequences (to assess the effects of enhanced cell attachment and slow degradation). The hMSCs were isolated, expanded in culture, characterized with respect to the expression of surface markers and ability for chondrogenic and osteogenic differentiation, seeded on scaffolds, and cultured for up to 4 weeks. Histological analysis and microcomputer tomography showed the development of up to 1.2-mm-long interconnected and organized bonelike trabeculae with cuboid cells on the silk-RGD scaffolds, features still present but to a lesser extent on silk scaffolds and absent on the collagen scaffolds. The X-ray diffraction pattern of the deposited bone corresponded to hydroxyapatite present in the native bone. Biochemical analysis showed increased mineralization on silk-RGD scaffolds compared with either silk or collagen scaffolds after 4 weeks. Expression of bone sialoprotein, osteopontin, and bone morphogenetic protein 2 was significantly higher for hMSCs cultured in osteogenic than control medium both after 2 and 4 weeks in culture. The results suggest that RGD-silk scaffolds are particularly suitable for autologous bone tissue engineering, presumably because of their stable macroporous structure, tailorable mechanical properties matching those of native bone, and slow degradation. (C) 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.5
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