4.8 Article

Differential affinity of vitronectin versus collagen for synthetic biodegradable scaffolds for urethroplastic applications

Journal

BIOMATERIALS
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 797-807

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.09.050

Keywords

Porous polyurethane; Poly 96L/4D lactide; Type I collagen; Type IV collagen; Vitronectin; Saturation

Funding

  1. NIH [NIH-5 R01 HL064387, R01DK062251, R01DK08881, UO1DK065202]
  2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [UL1RR025014] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL064387] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R01DK062251, U01DK065202] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cell-seeded synthetic polymer scaffolds constitute an emerging technology for urethroplastic applications The study goal was to identify urethral proteins appropriate for cell attachment and optimize their adsorption onto two types of scaffolds porous poly(ester urethane) with a poly(caprolactone) soft segment (PEU-PCL) and poly-(96% L/4% D)-lactic acid (P96L/4DLA) Specimens from eight men undergoing urethral reconstruction for stricture diseases were subjected to immunohistochemical analysis Type I collagen type IV collagen and vitronectin were detected at the interface between the epithelium and its basement membrane Electrophoresis confirmed that polypeptide chains in the starting material were also present in fractions eluted from adsorbed scaffolds Over a 4 week incubation assay only vitronectin exhibited 100% retention levels for all scaffolds The saturation point for each protein on each scaffold type was determined by titration and ELISA. The collective evidence indicates the concept that vitronectin > type IV collagen > type I collagen are preferred adsorption proteins for PEU-PCL and P96L/4DLA (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available