4.8 Article

Integration of multiple cell-matrix interactions into alginate scaffolds for promoting cardiac tissue regeneration

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 32, 期 7, 页码 1838-1847

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.11.008

关键词

Cardiac tissue engineering; ECM signaling; Heparin-binding peptide; RGD peptide; Scaffold; Syndecan

资金

  1. Israel Science Foundation [1368/08]
  2. European Union
  3. Israel Ministry of Science, Culture and Sport [FWP7 (INELPY)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cardiac tissue engineering aims to repair damaged myocardial tissues by applying heart patches created in vitro. Herein, we explored the possible role of a combination of two matrix-attached peptides, the adhesion peptide G(4)RGDY and heparin-binding peptide G(4)SPPRRARVTY (HBP) in cardiac tissue regeneration. Neonatal rat cardiac cells were seeded into unmodified, single peptide or double peptide-attached alginate scaffolds, all having the same physical features of porosity, hydrogel forming and matrix stiffness. The cardiac tissue developed in the HBP/RGD-attached scaffolds revealed the best features of a functional muscle tissue, as judged by all studied parameters, i.e., immunostaining of cardiac cell markers, histology, western blot of protein expressions and metabolic activity. By day 7, well-developed myocardial fibers were observed in these cell constructs. At 14 days the HBP/RGD-attached constructs presented an isotropic myofiber arrangement, while no such arrangement was seen in the other constructs. The expression levels of alpha-actinin, N-cadherin and Connexin-43, showing preservation and an increase in Connexin-43 expression (Cx-43) with time, further supported the formation a contractile muscle tissue in the HBP/RGD-attached scaffolds. Collectively, the attachment of combinatorial peptides representing different signaling in ECM-cell interactions proved to play a key role, contributing to the formation of a functional cardiac muscle tissue, in vitro. (C) 2010 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