BACKGROUND: Electrospun nanofibers have been utilized in many biomedical applications as biomimetics of extracellular matrix proteins that promote self-organization of cells into 3D tissue constructs. As progress towards an artificial salivary gland tissue construct, we prepared nanofiber scaffolds using PLGA, a biodegradable and biocompatible material. METHOD OF APPROACH: We used electrospinning to prepare nanofiber scaffolds using PLGA with both DMF and HFIP as solvents. Using a design of experiment (DOE) approach, system and process parameters were optimized concurrently and their effects on the diameter of the resulting fibers were computed into a single model. A transfer function was used to reproducibly produce nanofibers of a defined diameter, which was confirmed by SEM. The mouse salivary gland epithelial cell line, SIMS, was seeded on the nanofiber scaffolds, and morphology, cell proliferation, and viability were assayed. RESULTS: Varying two or more parameters simultaneously yielded trends diverging from the linear response predicted by previous studies. Comparison of two solvents revealed that the diameter of PLGA nanofibers generated using HFIP is less sensitive to changes in the system and process parameters than are fibers generated using DMF. Inclusion of NaCl reduced morphological inconsistencies and minimized process variability. The resulting nanofiber scaffolds supported attachment, survival and cell proliferation of a mouse salivary gland epithelial cell line. In comparison with glass and flat PLGA films, the nanofibers promoted self-organization of the salivary gland cells into 3D cell clusters, or aggregates. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that nanofiber scaffolds promote salivary gland cell organization, and suggest that a nanofiber scaffold could provide a platform for engineering of an artificial salivary gland tissue construct. This study additionally provides a method for efficient production of nanofiber scaffolds for general application in tissue engineering.
BACKGROUND: Electrospun nanofibers have been utilized in many biomedical applications as biomimetics of extracellular matrix proteins that promote self-organization of cells into 3D tissue constructs. As progress towards an artificial salivary gland tissue construct, we prepared nanofiber scaffolds using PLGA, a biodegradable and biocompatible material. METHOD OF APPROACH: We used electrospinning to prepare nanofiber scaffolds using PLGA with both DMF and HFIP as solvents. Using a design of experiment (DOE) approach, system and process parameters were optimized concurrently and their effects on the diameter of the resulting fibers were computed into a single model. A transfer function was used to reproducibly produce nanofibers of a defined diameter, which was confirmed by SEM. The mouse salivary gland epithelial cell line, SIMS, was seeded on the nanofiber scaffolds, and morphology, cell proliferation, and viability were assayed. RESULTS: Varying two or more parameters simultaneously yielded trends diverging from the linear response predicted by previous studies. Comparison of two solvents revealed that the diameter of PLGA nanofibers generated using HFIP is less sensitive to changes in the system and process parameters than are fibers generated using DMF. Inclusion of NaCl reduced morphological inconsistencies and minimized process variability. The resulting nanofiber scaffolds supported attachment, survival and cell proliferation of a mouse salivary gland epithelial cell line. In comparison with glass and flat PLGA films, the nanofibers promoted self-organization of the salivary gland cells into 3D cell clusters, or aggregates. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that nanofiber scaffolds promote salivary gland cell organization, and suggest that a nanofiber scaffold could provide a platform for engineering of an artificial salivary gland tissue construct. This study additionally provides a method for efficient production of nanofiber scaffolds for general application in tissue engineering.
Authors: Matthew J Dalby; Mathis O Riehle; Stephen J Yarwood; Chris D W Wilkinson; Adam S G Curtis Journal: Exp Cell Res Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 3.905
Authors: A S G Curtis; N Gadegaard; M J Dalby; M O Riehle; C D W Wilkinson; G Aitchison Journal: IEEE Trans Nanobioscience Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Matthew J Dalby; Nikolaj Gadegaard; Pawel Herzyk; Duncan Sutherland; Hossein Agheli; Chris D W Wilkinson; Adam S G Curtis Journal: J Cell Biochem Date: 2007-12-01 Impact factor: 4.429
Authors: L J Breckenridge; R J Wilson; P Connolly; A S Curtis; J A Dow; S E Blackshaw; C D Wilkinson Journal: J Neurosci Res Date: 1995-10-01 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Matthew J Dalby; Nikolaj Gadegaard; Mathis O Riehle; Chris D W Wilkinson; Adam S G Curtis Journal: Int J Biochem Cell Biol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 5.085
Authors: Lauren Sfakis; Tim Kamaldinov; Melinda Larsen; James Castracane; Alexander Khmaladze Journal: Tissue Eng Part C Methods Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 3.056
Authors: Shraddha I Cantara; David A Soscia; Sharon J Sequeira; Riffard P Jean-Gilles; James Castracane; Melinda Larsen Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Yuanhui Song; Azmeer Sharipol; Hitoshi Uchida; Matthew H Ingalls; Lindsay Piraino; Jared A Mereness; Tracey Moyston; Lisa A DeLouise; Catherine E Ovitt; Danielle S W Benoit Journal: Adv Healthc Mater Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 9.933
Authors: David A Soscia; Sharon J Sequeira; Robert A Schramm; Kavitha Jayarathanam; Shraddha I Cantara; Melinda Larsen; James Castracane Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2013-06-15 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Andrew D Shubin; Timothy J Felong; Dean Graunke; Catherine E Ovitt; Danielle S W Benoit Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 3.845