Isaac Perea-Gil1, Juan J Uriarte2, Cristina Prat-Vidal1, Carolina Gálvez-Montón1, Santiago Roura1, Aida Llucià-Valldeperas1, Carolina Soler-Botija1, Ramon Farré3, Daniel Navajas4, Antoni Bayes-Genis5. 1. ICREC (Heart Failure and Cardiac Regeneration) Research Lab, Health Sciences Research Institute Germans Trias i Pujol (IGTP). Cardiology Service, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Badalona, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Biophysics and Bioengineering Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Barcelona Barcelona, Spain ; CIBER Enfermedades Respiratorias Madrid, Spain. 3. Biophysics and Bioengineering Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Barcelona Barcelona, Spain ; CIBER Enfermedades Respiratorias Madrid, Spain ; Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer Barcelona, Spain. 4. Biophysics and Bioengineering Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Barcelona Barcelona, Spain ; CIBER Enfermedades Respiratorias Madrid, Spain ; Institute for Bioengineering of Catalonia Barcelona, Spain. 5. ICREC (Heart Failure and Cardiac Regeneration) Research Lab, Health Sciences Research Institute Germans Trias i Pujol (IGTP). Cardiology Service, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Badalona, Barcelona, Spain ; Department of Medicine, Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB) Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Selection of a biomaterial-based scaffold that mimics native myocardial extracellular matrix (ECM) architecture can facilitate functional cell attachment and differentiation. Although decellularized myocardial ECM accomplishes these premises, decellularization processes may variably distort or degrade ECM structure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two decellularization protocols (DP) were tested on porcine heart samples (epicardium, mid myocardium and endocardium). One protocol, DP1, was detergent-based (SDS and Triton X-100), followed by DNase I treatment. The other protocol, DP2, was focused in trypsin and acid with Triton X-100 treatments. Decellularized myocardial scaffolds were reseeded by embedding them in RAD16-I peptidic hydrogel with adipose tissue-derived progenitor cells (ATDPCs). RESULTS: Both protocols yielded acellular myocardial scaffolds (~82% and ~94% DNA reduction for DP1 and DP2, respectively). Ultramicroscopic assessment of scaffolds was similar for both protocols and showed filamentous ECM with preserved fiber disposition and structure. DP1 resulted in more biodegradable scaffolds (P = 0.04). Atomic force microscopy revealed no substantial ECM stiffness changes post-decellularization compared to native tissue. The Young's modulus did not differ between heart layers (P = 0.69) or decellularization protocols (P = 0.15). After one week, recellularized DP1 scaffolds contained higher cell density (236 ± 106 and 98 ± 56 cells/mm(2) for recellularized DP1 and DP2 scaffolds, respectively; P = 0.04). ATDPCs in both DP1 and DP2 scaffolds expressed the endothelial marker isolectin B4, but only in the DP1 scaffold ATDPCs expressed the cardiac markers GATA4, connexin43 and cardiac troponin T. CONCLUSIONS: In our hands, DP1 produced myocardial scaffolds with higher cell repopulation and promotes ATDPCs expression of endothelial and cardiomyogenic markers.
INTRODUCTION: Selection of a biomaterial-based scaffold that mimics native myocardial extracellular matrix (ECM) architecture can facilitate functional cell attachment and differentiation. Although decellularized myocardial ECM accomplishes these premises, decellularization processes may variably distort or degrade ECM structure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two decellularization protocols (DP) were tested on porcine heart samples (epicardium, mid myocardium and endocardium). One protocol, DP1, was detergent-based (SDS and Triton X-100), followed by DNase I treatment. The other protocol, DP2, was focused in trypsin and acid with Triton X-100 treatments. Decellularized myocardial scaffolds were reseeded by embedding them in RAD16-I peptidic hydrogel with adipose tissue-derived progenitor cells (ATDPCs). RESULTS: Both protocols yielded acellular myocardial scaffolds (~82% and ~94% DNA reduction for DP1 and DP2, respectively). Ultramicroscopic assessment of scaffolds was similar for both protocols and showed filamentous ECM with preserved fiber disposition and structure. DP1 resulted in more biodegradable scaffolds (P = 0.04). Atomic force microscopy revealed no substantial ECM stiffness changes post-decellularization compared to native tissue. The Young's modulus did not differ between heart layers (P = 0.69) or decellularization protocols (P = 0.15). After one week, recellularized DP1 scaffolds contained higher cell density (236 ± 106 and 98 ± 56 cells/mm(2) for recellularized DP1 and DP2 scaffolds, respectively; P = 0.04). ATDPCs in both DP1 and DP2 scaffolds expressed the endothelial marker isolectin B4, but only in the DP1 scaffold ATDPCs expressed the cardiac markers GATA4, connexin43 and cardiac troponin T. CONCLUSIONS: In our hands, DP1 produced myocardial scaffolds with higher cell repopulation and promotes ATDPCs expression of endothelial and cardiomyogenic markers.
Authors: Montserrat Rigol; Núria Solanes; Jordi Farré; Santiago Roura; Mercè Roqué; Antonio Berruezo; Neus Bellera; Laura Novensà; David Tamborero; Cristina Prat-Vidal; M A Angeles Huzman; Montserrat Batlle; Margo Hoefsloot; Marta Sitges; José Ramírez; Ana Paula Dantas; Anna Merino; Ginés Sanz; Josep Brugada; Antoni Bayés-Genís; Magda Heras Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2010-02-09 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Carolina Soler-Botija; Juli R Bagó; Aida Llucià-Valldeperas; Ana Vallés-Lluch; Cristina Castells-Sala; Cristina Martínez-Ramos; Teresa Fernández-Muiños; Juan Carlos Chachques; Manuel Monleón Pradas; Carlos E Semino; Antoni Bayes-Genis Journal: Am J Transl Res Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Adam J Engler; Christine Carag-Krieger; Colin P Johnson; Matthew Raab; Hsin-Yao Tang; David W Speicher; Joseph W Sanger; Jean M Sanger; Dennis E Discher Journal: J Cell Sci Date: 2008-10-28 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Bashir Bhana; Rohin K Iyer; Wen Li Kelly Chen; Ruogang Zhao; Krista L Sider; Morakot Likhitpanichkul; Craig A Simmons; Milica Radisic Journal: Biotechnol Bioeng Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Ignasi Jorba; Gabriel Beltrán; Bryan Falcones; Béla Suki; Ramon Farré; José Manuel García-Aznar; Daniel Navajas Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2019-05-11 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: Kaitlin M Whitehead; Hanifah K L Hendricks; Sirin N Cakir; Lisandra E de Castro Brás Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 5.125
Authors: Ryan A Behmer Hansen; Xinming Wang; Gitanjali Kaw; Valinteshley Pierre; Samuel E Senyo Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 3.246
Authors: Juan J Uriarte; Thayna Meirelles; Darya Gorbenko Del Blanco; Paula N Nonaka; Noelia Campillo; Elisabet Sarri; Daniel Navajas; Gustavo Egea; Ramon Farré Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 3.240