| Literature DB >> 28342099 |
Lien-Chen Wu1,2,3, Yi-Jie Kuo4,3, Fu-Wen Sun1, Chia-Hsien Chen2, Chang-Jung Chiang2,3, Pei-Wei Weng2,3, Yang-Hwei Tsuang2,3, Yi-You Huang5.
Abstract
Recent advances in tissue engineering have led to potential new strategies, especially decellularization protocols from natural tissues, for the repair, replacement, and regeneration of intervertebral discs. This study aimed to validate our previously reported method for the decellularization of annulus fibrosus (AF) tissue and to quantify potentially antigenic α-Gal epitopes in the decellularized tissue. Porcine AF tissue was decellularized using different freeze-thaw temperatures, chemical detergents, and incubation times in order to determine the optimal method for cell removal. The integrity of the decellularized material was determined using biochemical and mechanical tests. The α-Gal epitope was quantified before and after decellularization. Decellularization with freeze-thaw in liquid nitrogen, an ionic detergent (0.1% SDS), and a 24 h incubation period yielded the greatest retention of GAG and collagen relative to DNA reduction when tested as single variables. Combined, these optimal decellularization conditions preserved more GAG while removing the same amount of DNA as the conditions used in our previous study. Components and biomechanical properties of the AF matrix were retained. The decellularized AF scaffold exhibited suitable immune-compatibility, as evidenced by successful in vivo remodeling and a decrease in the α-Gal epitope. Our study defined the optimal conditions for decellularization of porcine AF tissues while preserving the biological composition and mechanical properties of the scaffold. Under these conditions, immunocompatibility was evidenced by successful in vivo remodeling and reduction of the α-Gal epitope in the decellularized material. Decellularized AF scaffolds are potential candidates for clinical applications in spinal surgery.Entities:
Keywords: Annulus fibrosus; Decellularization; Intervertebral disc; Tissue engineering; α-Gal epitope
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28342099 PMCID: PMC5587617 DOI: 10.1007/s10561-017-9619-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cell Tissue Bank ISSN: 1389-9333 Impact factor: 1.522
Results of biochemical assays of AF in decellularization
| GAG content (µg/mg) | Collagen content (µg/mg) | DNA content (ng/mg) | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Fresh AF (n = 6) | 107.07 ± 7.24 | 102.15 ± 9.93 | 46.31 ± 5.92 |
| Freeze–thaw in -80 °C (n = 6) | 94.03 ± 7.18a | 93.62 ± 5.26a | 10.38 ± 1.19a |
| Freeze–thaw in -196 °C liquid nitrogen refrigeration (n = 6) | 99.57 ± 7.70a,b | 101.75 ± 6.97a,b | 12.03 ± 2.52a,b |
|
| |||
| Fresh AF (n = 6) | 150.97 ± 4.60 | 117.68 ± 7.40 | 73.22 ± 5.43 |
| Decellularized in SDS (n = 6) | 142.85 ± 4.9a | 108.58 ± 11.58a | 12.34 ± 3.14a |
| Decellularized in Triton X-100 (n = 6) | 127.08 ± 8.45a,c | 100.79 ± 10.86a,c | 25.59 ± 7.04a,c |
|
| |||
| Fresh AF (n = 6) | 96.09 ± 2.88 | 120.94 ± 4.33 | 46.31 ± 5.92 |
| Decellularization for 24 h (n = 6) | 82.77 ± 6.17a | 109.72 ± 2.96a | 11.07 ± 2.17a |
| Decellularization for 48 h (n = 6) | 47.49 ± 6.25a,d | 94.18 ± 3.28a,d | 9.16 ± 2.11a |
| Decellularization for 72 h (n = 6) | 14.44 ± 2.90a,d,e | 89.80 ± 5.85a,d,e | 4.23 ± 1.34a |
|
| |||
| Fresh AF (n = 10) | 121.63 ± 5.66 | 153.63 ± 17.14 | 63.55 ± 3.71 |
| Optimal decellularization methods (n = 10) | 114.77 ± 10.61 | 151.73 ± 12.62 | 9.10 ± 2.20a |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation, and tested by analysis of variance for comparisons among 3 or 4 groups, or by independent t test for comparison between 2 groups
AF annulus fibrosus, GAG glycosaminoglycans, SDS sodium dodecyl sulfate
aSignificantly different from Fresh AF group, p < 0.05
bSignificantly different from −80 °C group, p < 0.05
cSignificantly different from SDS group, p < 0.05
dSignificantly different from 24 h group, p < 0.05
eSignificantly different from 48 h group, p < 0.05
Fig. 1Histology of annulus fibrosus (AF) with H&E stain. Cellular material is a clearly embedded in the matrix and b rare-to-absent in decellularized AF. Both ×40 magnification
Fig. 2a Fresh and b decellularized annulus fibrosus stained with Masson’s Trichrome (MT) staining. ×40 magnification
Fig. 3a Fresh and b decellularized annulus fibrosus stained with Periodic acid-schiff (PAS) staining. ×40 magnification
Fig. 4Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of annulus fibrosus (AF). a Fresh AF has pore-like structures, ×100 magnification. b Decellularized AF has confirmed retention of pore-like structures on the AF surface, ×100 magnification. c Fresh AF, ×200 magnification. d Decellularized AF, ×200 magnification
Fig. 5Biomechanical testing of annulus fibrosus. a Stress–strain compression curves. b Young’s modulus
Fig. 6Cytotoxicity studies of the control and decellularized annulus fibrosus (AF). There were no statistically significant differences between decellularized AF and negative control. Open bar negative control; Closed bar DAF (decellularized AF)
Fig. 7In vivo immuno-compatibility studies at 7 days. a Control group with H&E stain, ×40 magnification. b Repair group with H&E stain, ×40 magnification. c Control group with MT staining, ×40 magnification. d Repair group with MT staining, ×40 magnification. e Control group with PAS staining, ×40 magnification. f Repair group with PAS staining, ×40 magnification
Fig. 8In vivo immuno-compatibility studies at 14 days. a Control group with H&E stain, ×40 magnification. b Repair group with H&E stain, ×40 magnification. c Control group with MT staining, ×40 magnification. d Repair group with MT staining, ×40 magnification. e Control group with PAS staining, ×40 magnification. f Repair group with PAS staining, ×40 magnification
Fig. 9Quantification of α-Gal content. Treatment of annulus fibrosus tissues with the decellularization method resulted in the apparent removal of the α-Gal xeno-antigen (p < 0.001)