4.8 Article

Impact of heart valve decellularization on 3-D ultrastructure, immunogenicity and thrombogenicity

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 31, 期 9, 页码 2549-2554

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.11.088

关键词

Heart valve; Biocompatibility; Immune response; Thrombogenicity laser scanning; Ultrastructure

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [STO 359/2-5, STO 359/4-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decellularized xenogeneic tissue represents ail interesting material for heart valve tissue engineering The prospect objective is removal of all viable cells while preserving extracellular matrix (ECM) Integrity The major concerns of all decellularization protocols remain ECM disruption, immunogenicity and thrombogenicity, Accordingly the aim of this study was visualization of ultrastructural ECM disruption and human immune response and thrombogenicity using different decellularization protocols of porcine heart valves Porcine pulmonary leaflets were decellularized with four different protocols sodium deoxycholate, sodium dedecylsulfate, trypsin/EDTA, and trypsin-detergent-nuclease. Then file tissues were processed for histology and two-photon laser scanning microscopy (LSM) For thrombogenicity and immunogenicity testing tissues were Incubated with human blood The histological examination revealed no remaining cells and no significant differences in the ECM histoarchitecture in any group LSM defected significant ECM alterations in all groups except sodium deoxycholate group with an almost completely preserved ECM There was no increased immunogenicity between fresh and decellularized tissue Compared to GA-fixed tissue however significantly increased immune responses and thrombogenicity was observed in all protocols From our experiment, sodium deoxycholate enables cell removal with almost complete preservation of ECM structures And all of these four decellularization protocols affected human immunological response and increased thrombogenicity (C) 2009 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