Agatha S Critchfield1, Reid Mccabe2, Nikolai Klebanov2, Lauren Richey3, Simona Socrate4, Errol R Norwitz1, David L Kaplan2, Michael House5. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA. 3. Division of Laboratory Animal Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA mhouse@tuftsmedicalcenter.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the biocompatibility of silk gel for cervical injection. STUDY DESIGN: Silk gel was injected into the cervix of pregnant rats on day 13 (n = 11) and harvested at day 17. Histology of silk gel was compared with suture controls. Also, human cervical fibroblasts were cultured on silk gel and tissue culture plastic (TCP) in vitro. Cell viability, proliferation, metabolic activity, gene expression (COL1A1, COL3A1, and COX2), and release of proinflammatory mediators (interleukin [IL] 6 and IL-8) were evaluated. RESULTS: In vivo, a mild foreign body response was seen surrounding the silk gel and suture controls. In vitro, cervical fibroblasts were viable, metabolically active, and proliferating at 72 hours. Release of IL-6 and IL-8 was similar on silk gel and TCP. Collagen and COX2 gene expression was similar or slightly decreased compared with TCP. CONCLUSIONS: Silk gel was well tolerated in vivo and in vitro, which supports continuing efforts to develop silk gels as an alternative to cervical cerclage.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the biocompatibility of silk gel for cervical injection. STUDY DESIGN: Silk gel was injected into the cervix of pregnant rats on day 13 (n = 11) and harvested at day 17. Histology of silk gel was compared with suture controls. Also, human cervical fibroblasts were cultured on silk gel and tissue culture plastic (TCP) in vitro. Cell viability, proliferation, metabolic activity, gene expression (COL1A1, COL3A1, and COX2), and release of proinflammatory mediators (interleukin [IL] 6 and IL-8) were evaluated. RESULTS: In vivo, a mild foreign body response was seen surrounding the silk gel and suture controls. In vitro, cervical fibroblasts were viable, metabolically active, and proliferating at 72 hours. Release of IL-6 and IL-8 was similar on silk gel and TCP. Collagen and COX2 gene expression was similar or slightly decreased compared with TCP. CONCLUSIONS: Silk gel was well tolerated in vivo and in vitro, which supports continuing efforts to develop silk gels as an alternative to cervical cerclage.
Authors: Joyce A Martin; Brady E Hamilton; Paul D Sutton; Stephanie J Ventura; T J Mathews; Sharon Kirmeyer; Michelle J K Osterman Journal: Natl Vital Stat Rep Date: 2010-08-09
Authors: Lindsay S Wray; Xiao Hu; Jabier Gallego; Irene Georgakoudi; Fiorenzo G Omenetto; Daniel Schmidt; David L Kaplan Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2011-06-21 Impact factor: 3.368
Authors: Hannah H Chang; Jim Larson; Hannah Blencowe; Catherine Y Spong; Christopher P Howson; Sarah Cairns-Smith; Eve M Lackritz; Shoo K Lee; Elizabeth Mason; Andrew C Serazin; Salimah Walani; Joe Leigh Simpson; Joy E Lawn Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lorenz Meinel; Sandra Hofmann; Vassilis Karageorgiou; Carl Kirker-Head; John McCool; Gloria Gronowicz; Ludwig Zichner; Robert Langer; Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic; David L Kaplan Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Li Liu; Hope L Johnson; Simon Cousens; Jamie Perin; Susana Scott; Joy E Lawn; Igor Rudan; Harry Campbell; Richard Cibulskis; Mengying Li; Colin Mathers; Robert E Black Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-05-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Elaine M Boyle; Gry Poulsen; David J Field; Jennifer J Kurinczuk; Dieter Wolke; Zarko Alfirevic; Maria A Quigley Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-03-01
Authors: Joseph E Brown; Benjamin P Partlow; Alison M Berman; Michael D House; David L Kaplan Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Joseph E Brown; Jodie E Moreau; Alison M Berman; Heather J McSherry; Jeannine M Coburn; Daniel F Schmidt; David L Kaplan Journal: Adv Healthc Mater Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 9.933
Authors: Nicole R Raia; Stephanie L Bakaysa; Chiara E Ghezzi; Michael D House; David L Kaplan Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 3.368
Authors: Bouchra Koullali; Yali Zhang; Ashley Peterson; Nicole Raia; David L Kaplan; Michael D House Journal: Reprod Sci Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 3.060
Authors: Hannah C Zierden; Rachel L Shapiro; Kevin DeLong; Davell M Carter; Laura M Ensign Journal: Adv Drug Deliv Rev Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 17.873