4.7 Article

Fabrication of conductive fibrous scaffold for photoreceptor differentiation of mesenchymal stem cell

Journal

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 234, Issue 9, Pages 15800-15808

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcp.28238

Keywords

electrical conductive; nanostructure; photoreceptor-like cells; trabecular meshwork mesenchymal stem cells

Funding

  1. Zanjan University of Medical Sciences [A-12-892-18]
  2. Research and Technology [ZUMS.REC.1395.168]
  3. Iranian Council for Stem Cell Sciences and Technologies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conductive nanofibrous scaffolds with that can conduct electrical current have a great potential in neural tissue engineering. The purpose of this study was to survey effects of electrical stimulation and polycaprolactone/polypyrrole/multiwall carbon nanotube (PCL/PPY/MWCNTs) fibrous scaffold on photoreceptor differentiation of trabecular meshwork mesenchymal stem cells (TM-MSCs). PCL/PPY/MWCNTs scaffold was made by electrospinning method. TM-MSCs were seeded on PCL/PPY/MWCNTs scaffold and stimulated with a potential of 115V/m. Scanning electron microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, and FT-IR were used to evaluate the fabricated scaffold. Immunofluorescence and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction were used to examine differentiated cells. Scanning electron microscopy, transmitting electron microscopy, and FT-IR confirmed the creation of the composite structure of fibers. RT-qPCR analysis showed that the expression of rhodopsin and peripherin genes in electrically stimulated cells were significantly higher (5.7- and 6.23-fold, respectively; p0.05) than those with no electrical stimulation. Collectively, it seems that the combination of PCL/PPY/MWCNTs scaffold, as a suitable conductive scaffold, and electrical stimulation could be an effective approach in the differentiation of stem cells in retinal tissue engineering.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available