4.8 Article

Scaffolds with covalently immobilized VEGF and Angiopoietin-1 for vascularization of engineered tissues

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 226-241

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.09.039

关键词

Angiogenesis; Cardiac tissue engineering; Endothelial cell; Collagen; Growth factors; Scaffold

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  2. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario [NA 6077]
  3. NSERC Alexander Graham Bell Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to engineer a biomaterial capable of supporting vascularization in vitro and in vivo. We covalently immobilized vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and Angiopoietin-1 (Ang1) onto three-dimensional porous collagen scaffolds using 1-ethyl-3-[3-dimethylaminopropy]carbodiimide hydrochloride (EDC) chemistry. Over both 3 and 7 days in vitro, seeded endothelial cells (ECs) had increased proliferation on scaffolds with immobilized VEGF and/or Ang1 compared to unmodified scaffolds and soluble growth factor controls. Notably, the group with co-immobilized VEGF and Ang1 showed significantly higher cell number (P = 0.0079), higher overall lactate production rate (P = 0.0044) and higher overall glucose consumption rate (P = 0.0034) at Day 3, compared to its corresponding soluble control for which growth factors were added to culture medium. By Day 7, hematoxylin and eosin, live/dead, CD31, and von Willebrand factor staining all showed improved tube formation by ECs when cultivated on scaffolds with co-immobilized growth factors. Interestingly, scaffolds with co-immobilized VEGF and Ang1 showed increased EC infiltration in the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) assay, compared to scaffolds with independently immobilized VEGF/Ang1. This study presents an alternative method for promoting the formation of vascular structures, via covalent immobilization of angiogenic growth factors that are more stable than soluble ones and have a localized effect. (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