Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:29:33.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On Mechanics of Connective Tissue: Assessing the Electrostatic Contribution to Corneal Stroma Elasticity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Hamed Hatami-Marbini
Affiliation:
Peter M. Pinsky
Affiliation:
[email protected], Stanford University, Mechanical Eng, Stanford, California, United States
Get access

Abstract

The extracellular matrix plays a crucial role in defining the mechanical properties of connective tissues like cornea, heart, tendon, bone and cartilage among many others. The unique properties of these collagenous tissues arise because of both the hierarchal structure of collagens and the presence of negatively charged proteoglycans (PGs) which hold collagen fibers together. Here, in an effort to understand the mechanics of these structures, using the nonlinear Poison-Boltzmann (PB) equation, we study the electrostatic contribution to the elasticity of corneal stroma due to the presence of negatively charged PG glycosminoglycans (GAGs). Since collagens and GAGs have a regular hexagonal arrangement inside the corneal stroma, a triangular unit cell is chosen. The finite element method is used to solve the PB equation inside this domain and to obtain the electric potential and ionic distributions. Having the ion and potential distributions throughout the unit cell, the electrostatic free energy is computed and the tissue elasticity is calculated using the energy method. It is shown that as the ionic bath concentration increases; the electrostatic contribution to tissue elasticity is reduced.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Eisenberg, S.R. and Grodzinsky, A.J. J. Biomech. Eng. 109, 79, 1987.Google Scholar
2 Buschmann, M.D. and Grodzinsky, A.J. J. Biomech. Eng. 117, 179, 1995.Google Scholar
3 Jin, M. and Grodzinsky, A.J. Macromolecules, 34, 8330, 2001.Google Scholar
4 Zhu, W. mow, V.C. Koob, T. J. and Eyre, D.R. J. Orth. Res. 11, 771, 1993.Google Scholar
5 Hatami-Marbini, H. and Picu, R.C. Phys. Rev E 80, 046703, 2009.Google Scholar
6 Basser, P.J. Schneidermann, R. Bank, R.A. Wachtel, E. andMaroudas, A. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 351, 207, 1998.Google Scholar
7 Basser, P.J. and Grodzinsky, A.J. J. Biophys. Chem. 46, 57, 1993.Google Scholar
8 Fratzl, P. and Daxer, A. Biophys. J. 64, 1210, 1993.Google Scholar
9 Twersky, V. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 65, 524, 1975.Google Scholar
10 Maurice, D.M. Int. Opt. Clinics, 2, 561, 1962.Google Scholar
11 Muller, L.J. Pels, E. Schurmans, L.R.H.M. and Vrensen, G.F.J.M. Exp. Eye Res. 78, 493, 2004.Google Scholar
12 Scott, J.E. J. Anat. 180, 155, 1992.Google Scholar
13 Scott, J.E. J. Physiol. 553, 335, 2003.Google Scholar
14 Dean, D., Seog, J. Ortiz, C. and Grodzinsky, A.J. Langmuir, 19, 5526, 2003.Google Scholar
15 Hatami-Marbini, H. and Pinsky, P.M. under review, 2009 Google Scholar