4.6 Article

Location of scaffolds in bioreactors modulates the hydrodynamic environment experienced by engineered tissues

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING
卷 98, 期 1, 页码 282-294

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/bit.21385

关键词

computational fluid dynamics; hydrodynamics; wavy-walled bioreactor; tissue engineering; shear; stress; cartilage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Physical forces experienced by engineered-tissues during in vitro cultivation influence tissue growth and function. The hydrodynamic environment within bioreactors plays a decisive role in providing the necessary physical stimuli and nutrient transport to support tissue development. Our overall goal is to investigate interrelationships between the local hydrodynamic environment in the bioreactor and the structural and functional tissue properties in order to optimize the production of clinically relevant engineered-tissues. To this end, we used computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling to characterize the complex hydrodynamic environment in a wavy-walled bioreactor used for cultivation of tissue-engineered cartilage constructs and examined the changes in the flow field due to the presence of constructs. The flow-induced shear stress range experienced by engineered constructs cultivated in the wavy-walled bioreactor (0-0.67 dyn/cm(2)) was found to be significantly lower than that in the spinner flask (0-1.2 dyn/cm(2)), and to be modulated by the radial or axial position of the constructs. These CFD results are validated by experimental particle-image velocimetry (PIV) measurements previously reported by our group. Results from the present study indicate that the location of constructs in the bioreactor not only affected the magnitude and distribution of the shear stresses on the constructs, but also other hydrodynamic parameters, such as the directional distribution of the fluid velocity and the degree of fluid recirculation, all of which may differentially influence the development of tissue-engineered constructs.

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

4.6
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