4.5 Article

Image correlation spectroscopy of multiphoton images correlates with collagen mechanical properties

期刊

BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 94, 期 6, 页码 2361-2373

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.107.120006

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P41 RR001192-29, P41 RR001192, P41RR01192] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL067954, R01 HL067954] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiphoton microscopy (MPM) holds promise as a noninvasive imaging technique for characterizing collagen structure, and thus mechanical properties, through imaging second harmonic generation (SHG) and two-photon fluorescence in engineered and real connective tissues. Controlling polymerization pH to manipulate collagen gel microstructure, we quantified pore and fiber dimensions using both standard methods and image correlation spectroscopy (ICS) on MPM, scanning electron, and darkfield microscopy images. The latter two techniques are used to confirm microstructural measurements made from MPM images. As polymerization pH increased from 5.5 to 8.5, mean fiber diameter decreased from 3.7 +/- 0.7 mu m to 1.6 +/- 0.3 mu m, the average pore size decreased from 81.7 +/- 3.7 mu m(2) to 7.8 +/- 0.4 mu m(2), and the pore area fraction decreased from 56.8% +/- 0.8% to 18.0% +/- 1.3% (measured from SHG images), whereas the storage modulus G' and loss modulus G '', components of the shear modulus, increased similar to 33-fold and similar to 16-fold, respectively. A characteristic length scale measured using ICS, W-ICS, correlates well with the mean fiber diameter from SHG images (R-2 = 0.95). Semiflexible network theory predicts a scaling relationship of the collagen gel storage modulus (G) depending upon mesh size and fiber diameter, which are estimated from SHG images using ICS. We conclude that MPM and ICS are an effective combination to assess bulk mechanical properties of collagen hydrogels in a noninvasive, objective, and systematic fashion and may be useful for specific in vivo applications.

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

4.5
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