4.4 Article

Simple surface coating of electrospun poly-L-lactic acid scaffolds to induce angiogenesis

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMATERIALS APPLICATIONS
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 50-60

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0885328215569891

关键词

Poly-L-lactic acid; electrospinning; plasma polymerisation; layer-by-layer; heparin; vascular endothelial growth factor; ELISA; chick chorionic allantoic membrane

资金

  1. EPSRC White Rose Doctoral Training Centre Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tissue-engineered constructs often fail due to poor integration with the patient's tissues. Specifically, they fail to be neovascularised, leading to the death and loss of the implanted tissues. Thus, there is a need to produce angiogenic materials to improve tissue integration. We describe the development of a layer-by-layer approach to coat electrospun scaffolds to help promote angiogenesis into these biomaterials once implanted. Electrospun poly-L-lactic acid was coated comparing two different techniques - one using alternative layers of polyethyleneImine (PEI) and polyacrylic Acid (PAC) and one with alternative layers of PEI and heparin for a total of seven layers in both cases. Both scaffolds were then coated with heparin as the final layer. The scaffold coated with alternate PEI and PAC showed a clear ability to bind the most heparin. This scaffold was then studied further for its ability to bind vascular endothelial growth factor, which was confirmed using an ELISA. The scaffold coated with seven alternate layers of PEI and PAC and heparin was then implanted in a chick chorionic allantoic membrane (CAM) assay. After a period of 7 days in the CAM, the coated scaffold showed strong angiogenic activity. In contrast, the uncoated scaffolds did not promote angiogenesis. We conclude that this approach to functionalising scaffolds is effective within a clinically relevant time period (7 days in an in-vivo angiogenic model) and suggest this will be useful for improving integration of scaffolds once implanted.

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

4.4
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