4.7 Article

Freeze-gelled silk fibroin protein scaffolds for potential applications in soft tissue engineering

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2011.04.013

关键词

Silk fibroin; Freeze gelation; Scaffolds; Biomaterials; Tissue engineering

资金

  1. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India
  2. Department of Science and Technology, Government of India
  3. Indo-US Science and Technology Forum (IUSSTF), New Delhi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently tissue engineering has escalated much interest in biomedical and biotechnological applications. In this regard, exploration of new and suitable biomaterials is needed. Silk fibroin protein is used as one of the most preferable biomaterials for fabrication of scaffolds and several new techniques are being adopted to fabricate silk scaffolds with greater ease, efficiency and perfection. In this study, a freeze gelation technique is used for fabrication of silk fibroin protein 3D scaffolds, which is both time and energy efficient as compared to the conventional freeze drying technique. The fabricated silk fibroin freeze-gelled scaffolds are evaluated micro structurally for morphology with scanning electron microscopy which reveals relatively homogeneous pore structure and good interconnectivity. The pore sizes and porosity of these scaffolds ranges between 60-110 mu m and 90-95%, respectively. Mechanical test shows that the compressive strength of the scaffolds is in the range of 20-40 kPa. The applicability to cell culture of the freeze gelled scaffolds has been examined with human keratinocytes HaCat cells which show the good cell viability and proliferation of cells after 5 days of culture suggesting the cytocompatibility. The freeze-gelled 3D scaffolds show comparable results with the conventionally prepared freeze dried 3D scaffolds. Thus, this technique may be used as an alternative method for 3D scaffolds preparation and may also be utilized for tissue engineering applications. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据