Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:34:32.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proliferation and Osteogenic Differentiation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells on Biodegradable Calcium-deficient Hydroxyapatite Tubular Bacterial Cellulose Composites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2014

Pelagie Favi ,
Madhu Dhar ,
Nancy Neilsen  and
Roberto Benson
Pelagie Favi
Affiliation:
Materials Science and Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996
Madhu Dhar
Affiliation:
Large Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996
Nancy Neilsen
Affiliation:
Biomedical and Diagnostic Sciences. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996
Roberto Benson
Affiliation:
Materials Science and Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996
Get access

Abstract

Advanced biomaterials that mimic the structure and function of native tissues and permit stem cells to adhere and differentiate is of paramount importance in the development of stem cell therapies for bone defects. Successful bone repair approaches may include an osteoconductive scaffold that permits excellent cell adhesion and proliferation, and cells with an osteogenic potential. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cell proliferation, viability and osteocyte differentiation of equine-derived bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (EqMSCs) when seeded onto biocompatible and biodegradable calcium-deficient hydroxyapatite (CdHA) tubular-shaped bacterial cellulose scaffolds (BC-TS) of various sizes. The biocompatible gel-like BC-TS was synthesized using the bacterium Gluconacetobacter sucrofermentans under static culture in oxygen-permeable silicone tubes. The BC-TS scaffolds were modified using a periodate oxidation to yield biodegradable scaffolds. Additionally, CdHA was deposited in the scaffolds to mimic native bone tissues. The morphological properties of the resulting BC-TS and its composites were characterized using scanning electron microscopy. The ability of the BC-TS and its composites to support and maintain EqMSCs growth, proliferation and osteogenic differentiation in vitro was also assessed. BC-TS and its composites exhibited aligned nanofibril structures. MTS assay demonstrated increasing proliferation and viability with time (days 1, 2 and 3). Cell-scaffold constructs were cultured for 8 days under osteogenic conditions and the resulting osteocytes were positive for alizarin red. In summary, biocompatible and biodegradable CdHA BC-TS composites support the proliferation, viability and osteogenic differentiation of EqMSCs cultured onto its surface in vitro, allowing for future potential use for tissue engineering therapies.

Keywords

bonebiomaterialbiomimetic (chemical reaction)
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1621: Symposium H/C/D/J – Advances in Structures, Properties and Applications of Biological and Bioinspired Materials , 2014 , pp. 71 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2014 

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

REFERENCES

Lohmander, LS. Tissue engineering of cartillage: Do we need it, can we do it, is it good and can we prove it? In: Bock, G, Goode, J, editors. Tissue Engineering of Cartilage and Bone: Novartis Foundation Symposium 249. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2003. p. 2–10.Google Scholar
Marolt, D, Knezevic, M, Novakovic, GV. Bone tissue engineering with human stem cells. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2010;1:10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cui, D, Daley, W, Naftel, JP, Lynch, JC, Haines, DE, Yang, G, et al. . Atlas of Histology: With Functional and Clinical Correlations. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.Google Scholar
Guarino, V, Urciuolo, F, Alvarez-Perez, MA, Mele, B, Netti, PA, Ambrosio, L. Osteogenic differentiation and mineralization in fibre-reinforced tubular scaffolds: theoretical study and experimental evidences. J R Soc Interface. 2012;9:2201–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ustundag, CB, Kaya, F, Kamitakahara, M, Kaya, C, Ioku, K. Production of tubular porous hydroxyapatite using electrophoretic deposition. J Ceram Soc Jpn. 2012;120:569–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berner, A, Boerckel, JD, Saifzadeh, S, Steck, R, Ren, J, Vaquette, C, et al. . Biomimetic tubular nanofiber mesh and platelet rich plasma-mediated delivery of BMP-7 for large bone defect regeneration. Cell Tissue Res. 2012;347:603–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akkouch, A, Zhang, Z, Rouabhia, M. Engineering bone tissue using human dental pulp stem cells and an osteogenic collagen-hydroxyapatite-poly(ʟ-lactide-co-ε-caprolactone) scaffold. J Biomater Appl. 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, B-S, Kang, HJ, Lee, J. Improvement of the compressive strength of a cuttlefish bone-derived porous hydroxyapatite scaffold via polycaprolactone coating. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2013;101:1302–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchens, S, Benson, R, Evans, B, Rawn, C, O’Neill, H. A resorbable calcium-deficient hydroxyapatite hydrogel composite for osseous regeneration. Cellulose. 2009;16:887–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchens, SA, Benson, RS, Evans, BR, O’Neill, HM, Rawn, CJ. Biomimetic synthesis of calcium-deficient hydroxyapatite in a natural hydrogel. Biomaterials. 2006;27:4661–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Favi, PM, Benson, RS, Neilsen, NR, Hammonds, RL, Bates, CC, Stephens, CP, et al. . Cell proliferation, viability, and in vitro differentiation of equine mesenchymal stem cells seeded on bacterial cellulose hydrogel scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2013;33:1935–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigg, HF, Rowan, AD, Barker, MD, Cawston, TE. Activity of matrix metalloproteinase-9 against native collagen types I and III. FEBS J. 2007;274:1246–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helenius, G, Bäckdahl, H, Bodin, A, Nannmark, U, Gatenholm, P, Risberg, B. In vivo biocompatibility of bacterial cellulose. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2006;76A:431–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bielecki, S, Krystoynowicz, A, Turkiewicz, M, Kalinowska, H. Bacterial cellulose. In: Vandamme, EJ, De Baets, S, Steinb, A, editors. Biopolymers: Vol 5, Polysaccharides I, Polysaccharides from Prokaryotes. Weinham: Wiley; 2001. p. 37–46.Google Scholar
Fontana, J, De Souza, A, Fontana, C, Torriani, I, Moreschi, J, Gallotti, B, et al. . Acetobacter cellulose pellicle as a temporary skin substitute. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology. 1990;24-25:253–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kucharzewski, M, Slezak, A, Franek, A. Topical treatment of non-healing venous leg ulcers by cellulose membrane. Phlebologie. 2003;32:138–69.Google Scholar
Klemm, D, Schumann, D, Udhardt, U, Marsch, S. Bacterial synthesized cellulose — artificial blood vessels for microsurgery. Prog Polym Sci. 2001;26:1561–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J, Wan, Y, Huang, Y. Immobilisation of heparin on bacterial cellulose-chitosan nano-fibres surfaces via the cross-linking technique. IET Nanobiotechnol 2012 6:52–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putra, A, Kakugo, A, Furukawa, H, Gong, JP, Osada, Y. Tubular bacterial cellulose gel with oriented fibrils on the curved surface. Polymer. 2008;49:1885–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyu, S, Huang, C, Yang, H, Zhang, X. Electrospun fibers as a scaffolding platform for bone tissue repair. J Orthop Res. 2013;31:1382–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schramm, M, Hestrin, S. Factors affecting Production of Cellulose at the Air/ Liquid Interface of a Culture of Acetobacter xylinum. J Gen Microbiol. 1954;11:123–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhar, M, Neilsen, N, Beatty, K, Eaker, S, Adair, H, Geiser, D. Equine peripheral blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells: Isolation, identification, trilineage differentiation and effect of hyperbaric oxygen treatment. Equine Vet J. 2012;44:600–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar