4.7 Article

Nanofibrous materials affect the reaction of cytotoxicity assays

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-13002-w

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Centre for Research and Development [PL-TW/VI/4/2019]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found differences in the results of widely used cytotoxicity assays for nanofibrous materials, and revealed that nanofibrous materials affect the reaction of cytotoxicity assays. Therefore, when evaluating the safety of nanofibrous materials and other highly porous materials, careful planning and validation of different cytotoxicity assays, combined with additional analytical tools, are necessary.
Nanofibrous materials are widely investigated as a replacement for the extracellular matrix, the 3D foundation for cells in all tissues. However, as with every medical material, nanofibers too must pass all safety evaluations like in vitro cytotoxicity assays or in vivo animal tests. Our literature research showed that differences in results of widely used cytotoxicity assays applied to evaluate nanofibrous materials are poorly understood. To better explore this issue, we prepared three nanofibrous materials with similar physical properties made of poly-L-lactic acid, polyurethane, and polycaprolactone. We tested five metabolic cytotoxicity assays (MTT, XTT, CCK-8, alamarBlue, PrestoBlue) and obtained different viability results for the same nanofibrous materials. Further, the study revealed that nanofibrous materials affect the reaction of cytotoxicity assays. Considering the results of both described experiments, it is evident that validating all available cytotoxicity assays for nanofibrous materials and possibly other highly porous materials should be carefully planned and verified using an additional analytical tool, like scanning electron microscopy or, more preferably, confocal microscopy.

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