| Literature DB >> 28494781 |
Shuangyue Xu1,2, Fangna Lu1,2, Lianna Cheng1,2,3, Chenglin Li1,2, Xu Zhou4, Yuan Wu5, Hongxing Chen4, Kaichuang Zhang6, Lumin Wang1,2, Junjie Xia1,2, Guoliang Yan7,8,9, Zhongquan Qi10,11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The development of a suitable extracellular matrix (ECM) scaffold is the first step in vascular tissue engineering (VTE). Synthetic vascular grafts are available as an alternative to autologous vessels in large-diameter arteries (>8 mm) and medium-diameter arteries (6-8 mm). In small-diameter vessels (<6 mm), synthetic vascular grafts are of limited use due to poor patency rates. Compared with a vascular prosthesis, natural tissue ECM has valuable advantages. Despite considerable progress in recent years, identifying an optimal protocol to create a scaffold for use in small-diameter (<6 mm) fully natural tissue-engineered vascular grafts (TEVG), remains elusive. Although reports on different decellularization techniques have been numerous, combination of and comparison between these methods are scarce; therefore, we have compared five different decellularization protocols for making small-diameter (<6 mm) ECM scaffolds and evaluated their characteristics relative to those of fresh vascular controls.Entities:
Keywords: Arterial tissue engineering; Biocompatibility; Blood vessel decellularization; Rabbit arteria carotis
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28494781 PMCID: PMC5425976 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-017-0344-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Fig. 4Immunoreaction in decellularized blood vessel scaffolds in vivo. The images compare the immunoreactivity in the scaffolds prepared via protocol IV (considered the optimal protocol of the five experimental trials) 7 days after subcutaneous implantation in rats against that in fresh vascular controls. The green fluorescence shows the distributions of CD3e and CD11b (markers of T cells and macrophage cells, respectively) within the samples (magnification, ×100)
Experimental details for the five different decellularization protocols
| Protocol step | Group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | II | III | IV | V | |
| Soaking in ddw for 24 h | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Frozen at −80 °C and thawed twice | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Soaking: 75% ethanol | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Soaking in ddw for 24 h | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Digestion on an orbital shaker using a tissue:enzyme ratio (g/ml) of 1:15 | 0.125% pepsin | 0.125% pepsin | 0.125% pepsin | 0.125% pepsin | 0.125% pepsin |
| Solvent | 1× EDTA | 2× EDTA | 1× EDTA | 1× EDTA | 2× EDTA |
| Duration (h) | 1.5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1.5 |
| PBS washing for 30 min; shaking | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| DNase and RNase for 6 h; shaking | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Rinsing solution | ddw | ddw | Triton | ddw | Triton |
| Duration (h) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Ultraviolet irradiation for 30 min | √ | √ | |||
DNase and RNase concentration was 70 U/ml, respectively
Each step was performed at 4 °C
n = 5 for each group, repeated six times in all
ddw double-distilled water, Triton 1% Triton X100
Fig. 1Characterization of decellularized blood vessel scaffolds. A A gross view of fresh (left) and decellularized (right) rabbit carotid artery (length, 10 mm; internal diameter, 1.8 mm). Data comparisons between the following characteristics of decellularized scaffolds prepared by five different protocols (I–V) and fresh vascular controls; B breadths of the intima and media membranes (n = 6); C mean burst pressures (n = 6); D suture retention strengths (n = 6). **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Fig. 2Visual characterization of decellularized blood vessel scaffolds. Various microscopic and histological staining techniques were employed to compare the following characteristics between five experimental decellularized scaffolds and fresh vascular controls. (1–6) Scanning electron micrographs (SEM) showing the external surface appearances (magnification, ×2000) and (7–12) the luminal surface appearances of the scaffolds (magnification, ×2000); (13–18) hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining (magnification, ×400) and (19–24) DAPI staining (magnification, ×200) showing cross-sections of the scaffolds and the presence of nuclear residue; (25–30) Masson’s trichrome staining results (magnification, ×400) and (31–36) Picrosirius red staining showing the structures of the pores and collagen fibers in the matrices of the scaffolds (magnification, ×400)
Evaluation of scaffold cytotoxicity in vitro for each protocol
| Group | OD value (mean ± SD) | RGR (%) | Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negative control | 1.239 ± 0.04 | 100 | |
| Group I | 0.967 ± 0.02 | 78.05 | 1 |
| Group II | 1.093 ± 0.05 | 88.22 | 1 |
| Group III | 0.897 ± 0.03 | 72.40 | 2 |
| Group IV | 0.957 ± 0.04 | 77.24 | 1 |
| Group V | 0.747 ± 0.01 | 60.29 | 2 |
Cytotoxicity evaluation: RGR: relative growth ratio; level 1: RGR = 75–99%, low cytotoxicity; level 2: RGR = 50–74%, medium cytotoxicity
The evaluation standard was derived from the Biological evaluation of medical devices—part 5: test for in vitro cytotoxicity (GB/T 16886.5-2003/ISO 10993-5:1999, IDT)
Fig. 3Biocompatibility of decellularized blood vessel scaffolds in vivo. H&E staining showing host cell infiltration in decellularized scaffolds from rats at various time points following subcutaneous implantation compared to fresh vascular controls: day 7 (1–6); day 14 (7–12); day 28 (13–18); and day 56 (19–24). The images show progressive degradation and a decrease in inflammatory infiltration in the experimental scaffolds over time. In contrast, the extent of inflammatory infiltration in the control sample remains high throughout, with a clear boundary separating the scaffolds from the receptor tissue. At day 56, there is almost no evidence of the scaffold in the experimental groups. The blue arrow indicates the scaffold position; the suture points are identified by a dark grey point (magnification, ×100)