4.5 Article

Chitosan-hyaluronan: promotion of mucociliary differentiation of respiratory epithelial cells and development of olfactory receptor neurons

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/21691401.2019.1579732

关键词

Chronic rhinosinusitis; respiratory epithelium; olfactory neuroepithelium; chitosan; hyaluronan

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan
  2. Far Eastern Memorial Hospital [MOST-107-2314-B-418-009, FEMH-2019-C-007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Developing a biomaterial that promotes regeneration of both respiratory epithelium (RE) and olfactory neuroepithelium (ON) improves the surgical outcome of endoscopic sinus surgery. Although chitosan (CS) inhibits mucociliary differentiation of RE, it has been reported to regenerate ON. In addition, hyaluronic acid (HA) has been demonstrated to promote regeneration of RE. Whether the composite CS+HA would simultaneously benefit RE and ON remains unexplored. Human nasal respiratory epithelial cells (RECs) and olfactory neuroepithelial cells (ONCs) are respectively obtained from the RE and the ON. They are cultured in vitro and divided into groups undergoing four treatments, control, CS, HA, and CS+HA and assessed by scanning electron microscope, immunocytochemistry, and Western blots following indicated growth conditions. RECs keep polygonal morphology with mucociliary differentiation in the CS+HA group. The levels of E-cadherin, zonula occludens-1, mucin 5AC, and forkhead box protein J1 are significantly higher in the CS+HA group than in the CS alone group. In addition, ONCs express lower cytokeratin 18 (CK18) and higher olfactory marker protein (OMP) in the CS+HA group than in HA alone group. ONCs express more signal transduction apparatuses, adenylate cyclase 3, in CS and CS+HA groups than in HA and controls. Chitosan-hyaluronan plays a part in promoting differentiation of ORNs and facilitating mucociliary differentiation of RECs. This composite is a promising biomaterial for the sinonasal application.

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

4.5
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