Literature DB >> 16680700

Biocompatibility of subsieve-size capsules versus conventional-size microcapsules.

Shinji Sakai1, Changjun Mu, Kenji Kawabata, Ichiro Hashimoto, Koei Kawakami.   

Abstract

Biocompatibility of cell-enclosing capsules, defined as suppression of pericapsular cellular reactions, is one of the factors governing the success of enclosed cell transplantation in in vivo cell therapy. Agarose capsules of subsieve size, less than 100 microm in diameter, and conventional size, approximately 300-1,000 microm in diameter, were implanted into the peritoneal cavity and epididymal fat pads of mice and rats, respectively, to determine the effect of a reduction in diameter to subsieve size. The degree of cellular reaction to the subsieve-size capsules was much lower than that of the conventional-size microcapsules, independent of implantation site. The frequency of overgrown subsieve-size capsules retrieved from the peritoneal cavities was less than 5% in contrast to approximately 20% for capsules 387 microm in diameter. In addition, no increase in floating cells, which are generated through capsule stimulation, was observed in the peritoneal cavity only with subsieve-size capsules. From these results, we concluded that subsieve-size capsules are more biocompatible than microcapsules of conventional size.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16680700     DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.30676

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res A        ISSN: 1549-3296            Impact factor:   4.396


  8 in total

1.  Density-dependent separation of encapsulated cells in a microfluidic channel by using a standing surface acoustic wave.

Authors:  Jeonghun Nam; Hyunjung Lim; Choong Kim; Ji Yoon Kang; Sehyun Shin
Journal:  Biomicrofluidics       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 2.800

2.  Ocular biocompatibility of polyquaternium 10 gel: functional and morphological results.

Authors:  Roxana Valeria Alasino; Luciana Guadalupe Garcia; Ana Laura Gramajo; Juan Pablo Pusterla; Dante Miguel Beltramo; José Domingo Luna
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 3.896

3.  Microencapsulating and Banking Living Cells for Cell-Based Medicine.

Authors:  Wujie Zhang; Xiaoming He
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.682

Review 4.  Progress and challenges in macroencapsulation approaches for type 1 diabetes (T1D) treatment: Cells, biomaterials, and devices.

Authors:  Shang Song; Shuvo Roy
Journal:  Biotechnol Bioeng       Date:  2016-01-04       Impact factor: 4.530

Review 5.  Natural polymers for the microencapsulation of cells.

Authors:  Luca Gasperini; João F Mano; Rui L Reis
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 4.118

Review 6.  Functionalized nanostructures with application in regenerative medicine.

Authors:  Macarena Perán; María A García; Elena López-Ruiz; Milán Bustamante; Gema Jiménez; Roberto Madeddu; Juan A Marchal
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 6.208

7.  Zwitterionically modified alginates mitigate cellular overgrowth for cell encapsulation.

Authors:  Qingsheng Liu; Alan Chiu; Long-Hai Wang; Duo An; Monica Zhong; Alexandra M Smink; Bart J de Haan; Paul de Vos; Kevin Keane; Andreas Vegge; Esther Y Chen; Wei Song; Wendy F Liu; James Flanders; Claude Rescan; Lars Groth Grunnet; Xi Wang; Minglin Ma
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 14.919

Review 8.  Microcarriers in application for cartilage tissue engineering: Recent progress and challenges.

Authors:  Sheng-Long Ding; Xin Liu; Xi-Yuan Zhao; Ke-Tao Wang; Wei Xiong; Zi-Li Gao; Cheng-Yi Sun; Min-Xuan Jia; Cheng Li; Qi Gu; Ming-Zhu Zhang
Journal:  Bioact Mater       Date:  2022-01-25
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.