| Literature DB >> 27255078 |
Xing Zhao1,2,3, Anestis Papadopoulos1, Shinichi Ibusuki1, David A Bichara1,2, Daniel B Saris3,4, Jos Malda3,5, Kristi S Anseth6, Thomas J Gill1, Mark A Randolph7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Injuries to the human native cartilage tissue are particularly problematic because cartilage has little to no ability to heal or regenerate itself. Employing a tissue engineering strategy that combines suitable cell sources and biomimetic hydrogels could be a promising alternative to achieve cartilage regeneration. However, the weak mechanical properties may be the major drawback to use fully degradable hydrogels. Besides, most of the fully degradable hydrogels degrade too fast to permit enough extracellular matrix (ECM) production for neocartilage formation. In this study, we demonstrated the feasibility of neocartilage regeneration using swine articular chondrocytes photoencapsualted into poly (ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (PEGDM) copolymer hydrogels composed of different degradation profiles: degradable (PEG-LA-DM) and nondegradable (PEGDM) macromers in molar ratios of 50/50, 60/40, 70/30, 80/20, and 90/10.Entities:
Keywords: Articular cartilage; Cartilage regeneration; PEG hydrogel; PEGDM hydrogel
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27255078 PMCID: PMC4891826 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-1100-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Construct volume data of the preliminary study after 6 weeks in vivo using 50/50, 60/40, 70/30, 80/20 and 90/10 ratios of degradable/nondegradable PEG (# p > 0.05)
Fig. 2Hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections of the preliminary results demonstrated noncontiguous cartilage formation using 50/50, 60/40, 70/30, and 80/20 ratios. (From left to right, original magnification × 100, bar: 100 μm)
Summary of Specimen Dataa
| 60/40 (PEG-LA-DM/PEGDM) | 70/30 (PEG-LA-DM/PEGDM) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time 0 Controlb | 6 weeks | 12 weeks | 18 weeks | Time 0 Control | 6 weeks | 12 weeks | 18 weeks | |
| Wet weight (mg) | 103.50 ± 4.10 | 91.35 ± 4.31 | 111.05 ± 4.59 | 117.90 ± 4.38 | 104.80 ± 8.06 | 100.35 ± 3.61 | 107.45 ± 2.57 | 114.30 ± 2.54 |
| Volume (mm3) | 93.54 ± 1.21 | 86.09 ± 3.92 | 96.02 ± 3.89 | 104.55 ± 1.32 | 92.92 ± 4.64 | 91.87 ± 1.42 | 93.79 ± 1.38 | 102.85 ± 2.37 |
| Water content (%) | 82.29 ± 3.78 | 79.01 ± 4.05 | 85.70 ± 2.45 | 86.09 ± 2.95 | 83.14 ± 3.87 | 80.07 ± 4.42 | 86.22 ± 3.17 | 85.61 ± 2.91 |
PEG-LA-DM poly(ethylene glycol)-4,5 lactic acid dimethacrylate, GAG glycosaminoglycan, HYP hydroxyproline
aAll the data are presented as mean value ± standard deviation
bTime 0 controls were specimens in which cells were encapsulated in gels and then analyzed for baseline data
Fig. 3Macroscopic view of constructs over the implantation time for 60/40 and 70/30 ratios
Fig. 4Biochemical evaluation data. (a) DNA content (b) GAG content and (c) hydroxyproline content. ( 0w, 6w, 12w, 18w, native swine) (* p < 0.05, † p < 0.01, § p < 0.001)
Fig. 5Histological and an immunohistochemical results from gels made with 60/40 and 70/30 ratios of degradable/nondegradable PEG compared to native swine articular cartilage. (Original magnification × 100, bar: 100 μm)
Fig. 6Upper row: Macroscopic view of 18 week constructs of ring model for integration study. Below each group are the toluidine blue (left) and collagen type II (right) staining of the integration interface between the engineered cartilage (EC) and native articular cartilage (NC) related to the above constructs. (Original magnification × 100, bar: 100 μm)