4.7 Article

In vitro 3D skin model using gelatin methacrylate hydrogel

Journal

JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
Volume 66, Issue -, Pages 254-261

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiec.2018.05.037

Keywords

In vitro skin models; Gelatin methacrylate; Extracellular matrix; Fibroblasts; Keratinocytes

Funding

  1. Hongik University
  2. Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology (Establishment of Infrastructure for Industrialization of Korean Useful Microbes) [R0004073]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1D1A1B03934710]
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MSIP) [NRF-2015R1A4A1041631]
  5. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [R0004073] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  6. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1D1A1B03934710, 2015R1D1A1A01056799] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Interests in in vitro skin models have been growing. Collagen, which is a main scaffold material for in vitro 3D skin models, has weak mechanical properties, often resulting in undesirable contraction. The physiological characteristics of the skin models often depend on the matrix in which cells are cultured. In this study, we developed a 3D skin model using gelatin methacrylate. The mechanical and transport properties were studied, and attachment and growth of fibroblasts and keratinocytes were examined. Fibroblasts preferred softer matrix, whereas HaCaT cells preferred harder matrix of gelatin methacrylate. This study provides information for developing in vitro skin models. (C) 2018 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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