4.2 Article

Freeze-Dried Rat Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cell Paracrine Factors: A Simplified Novel Material for Skin Wound Therapy

期刊

TISSUE ENGINEERING PART A
卷 21, 期 5-6, 页码 1036-1046

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/ten.tea.2014.0102

关键词

-

资金

  1. Science and Technology Project of Guangzhou, China [2012J4100044]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81171812]
  3. National Basic Science and Development Program, China (973 Program) [2012CB518105]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) supernatant is well known as a rich source of autologous cytokines and universally used for tissue regeneration in current clinical medicine. However, the limitation of conditioned medium used in open-wound repair compels the need to find a more sophisticated way to take advantage of the trophic factors of MSCs. We have now fabricated a three-dimensional membrane from freeze-dried bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells-conditioned medium (FBMSC-CM) using a simple freeze-dried protocol. Scanning electron microscopy images showed the microstructure of the FBMSC-CM membrane (FBMSC-CMM) resembling a mesh containing growth factors. ELISA was used to test the paracrine factors retained in the FBMSC-CMM, and the results indicated that FBMSC-CMM withheld over 80% of the paracrine factors. Live/dead assays were adopted to test the toxicity of the FBMSC-CMM on cultured rat dermal fibroblasts, and the results confirmed its biological safety with low toxicity. Moreover, the FBMSC-CMM could significantly accelerate wound healing and enhance the neovascularization as well as epithelialization through strengthening the trophic factors in the wound bed as determined by immunohistochemical staining. Thus, the ability to maintain paracrine factors and enhance the effectiveness of these growth factors in the wound as well as the simple procedure and economical materials required for production qualifies the FBMSC-CMM to be a candidate biomaterial for open-wound regeneration.

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

4.2
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