4.8 Article

A microfabricated scaffold for retinal progenitor cell grafting

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 418-426

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.10.007

关键词

progenitor cell; scaffold; retina; biocompatibility; elastomer

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [T32 EY007145, F32 EY018285, T32 EY007145-06, F32 EY018285-01, 1 F32 EY018285-01, T30 EY07145-06] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL060435, R01 HL060435-05, R01 HL060435] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDCR NIH HHS [R01 DE013023, R01 DE013023-08, DE013023] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diseases that cause photoreceptor cell degeneration afflict millions of people, yet no restorative treatment exists for these blinding disorders. Replacement of photoreceptors using retinal progenitor cells (RPCs) represents a promising therapy for the treatment of retinal degeneration. Previous studies have demonstrated the ability of polymer scaffolds to increase significantly both the survival and differentiation of RPCs. We report the microfabrication of a poly(glycerol-sebacate) scaffold with superior mechanical properties for the delivery of RPCs to the subretinal space. Using a replica molding technique, a porous poly(glycerol-sebacate) scaffold with a thickness of 45 mu m was fabricated. Evaluation of the mechanical properties of this scaffold showed that the Young's modulus is about 5-fold lower and the maximum elongation at failure is about 10-fold higher than the previously reported RPC scaffolds. RPCs strongly adhered to the poly(glycerol-sebacate) scaffold, and endogenous fluorescence nearly doubled over a 2-day period before leveling off after 3 days. Immmohistochemistry revealed that cells grown on the scaffold for 7 days expressed a mixture of immature and mature markers, suggesting a tendency towards differentiation. We conclude that microfabricated poly(glycerol-sebacate) exhibits a number of novel properties for use as a scaffold for RPC delivery. (c) 2007 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