4.8 Article

Construction of the recellularized corneal stroma using porous acellular corneal scaffold

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 32, 期 29, 页码 6962-6971

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.05.084

关键词

Corneal tissue engineering; Decellularization; Scaffold; Freezing dry; Porosity

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30973246]
  2. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, China [2009A030200004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acellular porcine cornea stroma (APCS) prepared using pancreatic phospholipase A(2) was proven to be promising corneal scaffold. However, its dense ultrastructure provides insufficient space that prevents the seeded cells from organizing into a functional tissue. In this report, freezing dry APCS (FD-APCS) biomaterials containing pores with different sizes were fabricated at different pre-freezing temperatures of -10, -80 or -198 degrees C, and the percentage of large pores (equivalent circle diameter >= 10 mu m) was 93.55%, 69.36%, 35.79%, while the small pores (< 10 mu m) were account for 6.45%, 30.64%, 64.21%, respectively. Both porosity and specific surface area increased in FD-APCS fabricated with decreased pre-freezing temperature, and they were dramatically higher than those in APCS. The three FD-APCS groups displayed higher permeability than APCS, and the -10 degrees C FD-APCS possessed the highest permeability. The keratocytes seeded in the FD-APCS construct survived well in vitro, and maximal cell proliferation was observed in the -10 degrees C FD-APCS. The light transmittance of the FD-APCS-transplanted cornea after interlamellar keratoplasty in rabbit eyes displayed no significant difference from the APCS-transplanted or native cornea. This study indicated that the porous FD-APCS prepared using pancreatic phospholipase A(2) is capable of serving as potential scaffold for constructing tissue-engineered cornea with biological properties. (C) 2011 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