4.8 Article

Novel porous aortic elastin and collagen scaffolds for tissue engineering

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 25, 期 22, 页码 5227-5237

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.12.019

关键词

scaffold; collagen; elastin; tissue engineering; biodegradation

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL61652] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decellularized vascular matrices are used Lis scaffolds in cardiovascular tissue engineering because they retain their natural biological composition and three-dimensional (3-D) architecture suitable for cell adhesion and proliferation. However, cell infiltration and subsequent repopulation of these scaffolds was shown to be unsatisfactory due to their dense collagen and elastic fiber networks. In an attempt to create more porous structures for cell repopulation, we selectively removed matrix components from decellularized porcine aorta to obtain two types of scaffolds, namely elastin and collagen scaffolds. Histology and scanning electron microscopy examination of the two scaffolds revealed a well-oriented porous decellularized structure that maintained natural architecture of the aorta. Quantitative DNA analysis confirmed that both scaffolds were completely decellularized. Stress-strain analysis demonstrated adequate mechanical properties for both elastin and collagen scaffolds. In vitro enzyme digestion of the scaffolds suggested that they were highly biodegradable. Furthermore, the biodegradability of collagen scaffolds could be controlled by crosslinking with carbodiimides. Cell culture studies showed that fibroblasts adhered to and proliferated on the scaffold surfaces with excellent cell viability. Fibroblasts infiltrated about 120 mum into elastin scaffolds and about 40 pin into collagen scaffolds after 4 weeks of rotary cell culture. These results indicated that our novel aortic elastin and collagen matrices have the potential to serve as scaffolds for cardiovascular tissue engineering. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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