4.5 Article

Silk fibroin/chitosan-hyaluronic acid versus silk fibroin scaffolds for tissue engineering: promoting cell proliferations in vitro

Journal

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS SCIENCE-MATERIALS IN MEDICINE
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages 1343-1351

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10856-009-3876-0

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Council of the Republic of China, Taiwan [NSC-96-2321-B-002043, NSC-97-2314-B-002-045, NSC-96-2221-E-224-077-MY3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The feasibility of silk fibroin protein (SF) scaffolds for tissue engineering applications to promote cell proliferation has been demonstrated, as well as the ability to mimic natural extra-cellular matrix (ECM), SF/chitosan (CS), a polysaccharide, scaffolds for tissue engineering. However, the response of cells to SF/CS-hyaluronic acid (SF/CS-HA) scaffolds has not been examined, which this study attempts to do and then compares those results with those of SF scaffolds. SF/CS-HA microparticles were fabricated to produce scaffolds in order to examine the proliferations of human dermal fibroblasts (HDF) in the scaffolds. Positive zeta potentials and ATR-FTIR spectra confirmed the co-existence of SF and CS-HA in SF/CS-HA microparticles. HDF proliferated well and migrated into SF/CS-HA scaffolds for around 160 mu m in depth, as well as those in SF scaffolds after 7 days of cultivation, as observed using confocal microscopy. Interestingly, HDF grown in SF/CS-HA scaffolds had a markedly higher cell density than that in SF ones. Additionally, MTT assay revealed that the growth rates of HDF in SF/CS-HA scaffolds significantly exceeded (P < 0.01, n = 5) those in scaffolds of SF and SF/CS. The daily glucose consumptions and lactate formations, metabolic parameters, of HDF grown in SF/CS-HA and SF/CS scaffolds were significantly higher (P < 0.01, n = 3) than those in SF ones in most culturing days. Results of this study suggest that SF/CS-HA scaffolds have better cell responses for tissue engineering applications than SF ones.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available