Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:14:07.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Role of Scaffold Architecture and Mechanical Properties of Electrospun Scaffolds in Cell Seeding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Nandula D. Wanasekara ,
Ming Chen ,
Vijaya B Chalivendra  and
Sankha Bhowmick
Nandula D. Wanasekara
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Materials & Textiles, North Dartmouth, Massachusetts, United States
Ming Chen
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Biomedical Engineering & Biotechnology, North Dartmouth, Massachusetts, United States
Vijaya B Chalivendra
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Mechanical Engineering, 02747, Massachusetts, United States
Sankha Bhowmick
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Mechanical Engineering & Biomedical Engineering Biotechnology, 02747, Massachusetts, United States
Get access

Abstract

Seeding a layer of cells at specific depths within scaffolds is an important optimization parameter for bi-layer skin models. The work presented investigated the effect of fiber diameter and its mechanical property on the depth of cell seeding for electro-spun fiber scaffold. Polycaprolactone (PCL) is used to generate scaffolds that are submicron (400nm) to micron (1100nm) using electro-spinning. 3T3 fibroblasts were seeded on the electro-spun fiber scaffold mat of 50-70 microns thickness in this study. In order to investigate the effect of fiber diameter on cell migration, first, the electrospun fiber scaffold was studied for variation of mechanical properties as a function of fiber diameters. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) was used to investigate the Young’s modulus (E) values as a function of fiber diameter. It was identified that as the fiber diameter increases, the Young’s modulus values decreases considerably from 1.1GPa to 200MPa. The variation in E is correlated with cell seeding depth as a function of vacuum pressure. A higher E value led to a lower depth of cell seeding (closer to the surface) indicating that nanofibrous scaffolds offer larger resistance to cell movement compared to microfibrous scaffolds.

Keywords

fibernano-indentationscanning probe microscopy (SPM)
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1239: Symposium VV – Micro- and Nanoscale Processing of Biomaterials , 2009 , 1239-VV05-04
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 Nair, L. S. Bhattacharyya, S. Laurencin, C. T. Expert. Opin. Biol. Ther. 4, 659 (2004).Google Scholar
2 Fong, H. Chun, I. Reneker, D. Polymer. 40, 4585 (1999).Google Scholar
3 Matthews, J. Wnek, G. Simpson, D. Bowlin, G. Biomacromolecules. 3, 232 (2002).Google Scholar
4 Jin, H. Chen, J. Karageorgiou, V. Altman, G. Kaplan, D. Biomaterials. 25, 1039 (2004).Google Scholar
5 Yoshimoto, H. YShin, Terai, H. Vacanti, J. Biomaterials, 24, 2077 (2003).Google Scholar
6 Shin, M. Ishii, O. Sueda, T. Vacanti, J. Biomaterials. 25, 3717 (2004).Google Scholar
7 Oliver, W.C. and Pharr, G.M., J. Mater. Res., 7, 1564 (1992)Google Scholar
8 Nascimento, E. M. and Lepiensk, C. M. J. non-cryst. Solids 352, 3556 (2006)Google Scholar
9 Wang, M. Jin, H. Kaplan, D. L. and Rutledge, G. C. Macromolecules. 37, 6856 (2004).Google Scholar
10 Tan, E. P. S. and Lim, C. T. Appl. Phys. Lett. 87, 123106 (2005)Google Scholar
11 Soliman, S. Sant, S. Traversa, E. Nichol, JW. and Khademhosseini, Ali, 11th International Conference on Advanced Materials, 2009 Google Scholar
12 Langer, R. Mol. Ther. 1, 5 (2000).Google Scholar
13 Soletti, L. Nieponice, A. Guan, J. Stankus, J. J. Wagner, W. R. Worp, D. A. Biomaterials, 27, 4863 (2006).Google Scholar
14 Chen, M. Michaud, H. and Bhowmick, S., J biomech eng-t ASME 131, 1 (2009)Google Scholar
15 Dar, A. Shachar, M. Leor, J. Cohen, S. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 80, 305 (2002).Google Scholar
16 Saini, S. Wick, T. M. Biotechnol. Prog. 19, 510 (2003).Google Scholar
17 Carrier, F. Owens, R. A. Nebert, D. W. Puga, A. Mol. Cell. Biol. 12, 1856 (1992).Google Scholar
18 Merchuk, J. C. Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol. 44. 65 (1991).Google Scholar
19 Reynaud, C. Sommer, F. Quet, C. Bounia, N. El and Duc, T. M. Surf. and Interface Anal. 30, 185 (2000).Google Scholar