OBJECTIVES: We prepared 3D poly (ε-caprolactone) (PCL) nanofibre scaffolds and tested their use for seeding, proliferation, differentiation and migration of mesenchymal stem cell (MSCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3D nanofibres were prepared using a special collector for common electrospinning; simultaneously, a 2D PCL nanofibre layer was prepared using a classic plain collector. Both scaffolds were seeded with MSCs and biologically tested. MSC adhesion, migration, proliferation and osteogenic differentiation were investigated. RESULTS: The 3D PCL scaffold was characterized by having better biomechanical properties, namely greater elasticity and resistance against stress and strain, thus this scaffold will be able to find broad applications in tissue engineering. Clearly, while nanofibre layers of the 2D scaffold prevented MSCs from migrating through the conformation, cells infiltrated freely through the 3D scaffold. MSC adhesion to the 3D nanofibre PCL layer was also statistically more common than to the 2D scaffold (P < 0.05), and proliferation and viability of MSCs 2 or 3 weeks post-seeding, were also greater on the 3D scaffold. In addition, the 3D PCL scaffold was also characterized by displaying enhanced MSC osteogenic differentiation. CONCLUSIONS: We draw the conclusion that all positive effects observed using the 3D PCL nanofibre scaffold are related to the larger fibre surface area available to the cells. Thus, the proposed 3D structure of the nanofibre layer will find a wide array of applications in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.
OBJECTIVES: We prepared 3D poly (ε-caprolactone) (PCL) nanofibre scaffolds and tested their use for seeding, proliferation, differentiation and migration of mesenchymal stem cell (MSCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3D nanofibres were prepared using a special collector for common electrospinning; simultaneously, a 2D PCL nanofibre layer was prepared using a classic plain collector. Both scaffolds were seeded with MSCs and biologically tested. MSC adhesion, migration, proliferation and osteogenic differentiation were investigated. RESULTS: The 3D PCL scaffold was characterized by having better biomechanical properties, namely greater elasticity and resistance against stress and strain, thus this scaffold will be able to find broad applications in tissue engineering. Clearly, while nanofibre layers of the 2D scaffold prevented MSCs from migrating through the conformation, cells infiltrated freely through the 3D scaffold. MSC adhesion to the 3D nanofibre PCL layer was also statistically more common than to the 2D scaffold (P < 0.05), and proliferation and viability of MSCs 2 or 3 weeks post-seeding, were also greater on the 3D scaffold. In addition, the 3D PCL scaffold was also characterized by displaying enhanced MSC osteogenic differentiation. CONCLUSIONS: We draw the conclusion that all positive effects observed using the 3D PCL nanofibre scaffold are related to the larger fibre surface area available to the cells. Thus, the proposed 3D structure of the nanofibre layer will find a wide array of applications in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.
Authors: Byung-Moo Min; Gene Lee; So Hyun Kim; Young Sik Nam; Taek Seung Lee; Won Ho Park Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2004 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Andrea Mickova; Matej Buzgo; Oldrich Benada; Michala Rampichova; Zdenek Fisar; Eva Filova; Martina Tesarova; David Lukas; Evzen Amler Journal: Biomacromolecules Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 6.988
Authors: S A Riboldi; N Sadr; L Pigini; P Neuenschwander; M Simonet; P Mognol; M Sampaolesi; G Cossu; S Mantero Journal: J Biomed Mater Res A Date: 2008-03-15 Impact factor: 4.396
Authors: M Rampichová; E Koštáková; E Filová; E Prosecká; M Plencner; L Ocheretná; A Lytvynets; D Lukáš; E Amler Journal: Physiol Res Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 1.881
Authors: Vera Lukasova; Matej Buzgo; Vera Sovkova; Jana Dankova; Michala Rampichova; Evzen Amler Journal: Cell Prolif Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 6.831
Authors: Michala Rampichová; Matej Buzgo; Jiří Chvojka; Eva Prosecká; Olga Kofroňová; Evžen Amler Journal: Cell Adh Migr Date: 2013-01-01 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: M Rampichová; E Košt'áková Kuželová; E Filová; J Chvojka; J Šafka; M Pelcl; J Daňková; E Prosecká; M Buzgo; M Plencner; D Lukáš; E Amler Journal: Cell Adh Migr Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Tomáš Suchý; Monika Šupová; Martin Bartoš; Radek Sedláček; Marco Piola; Monica Soncini; Gianfranco Beniamino Fiore; Pavla Sauerová; Marie Hubálek Kalbáčová Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: Xinjie Cai; Sofie Ten Hoopen; Weibo Zhang; Charles Yi; Wanxun Yang; Fang Yang; John A Jansen; X Frank Walboomers; Pamela C Yelick Journal: J Biomed Mater Res A Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 4.396