Literature DB >> 28752668

Comparison of two decellularized dermal equivalents.

Shiuhyang Kuo1, Hyungjin Myra Kim2, Zhifa Wang3, Eve L Bingham1, Atsuko Miyazawa1, Cynthia L Marcelo3, Stephen E Feinberg1,3.   

Abstract

Immunologically inert allogeneic acellular dermal scaffolds provide a matrix with molecular architecture close to native tissues, which synthetic scaffolds cannot. Not all nature-derived scaffolds possess the same biological and physical properties. The different properties of scaffolds supporting cellular growth used for manufacturing tissue engineered grafts could lead to different implantation results. The scaffold properties should be carefully considered in order to meet the expected outcomes of tissue engineered grafts. In this report, we evaluated the cellular growth on AlloDerm® and Allopatch, 2 acellular scaffolds derived from human cadaver skin, using a fabricated 3D organotypic culture with primary human oral keratinocytes to produce an ex vivo produced oral mucosa equivalent (EVPOME). A well stratified epithelium could be constructed on both scaffolds. AlloDerm® and Allopatch EVPOMEs were also implanted into severe combined immunodeficiency mice to compare the ingrowth of blood vessels into the dermal component of the two EVPOMEs. Blood vessel counts were 3.3 times higher (p = .01) within Allopatch EVPOMEs than within AlloDerm® EVPOMEs. An oral and skin keratinocyte co-culture, separated by a physical barrier to create a cell-free zone, was used to evaluate cell migration on AlloDerm® and Allopatch. Slower cell migration was observed on Allopatch than on AlloDerm®.
Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D culture; acellular dermal equivalents; keratinocytes; mucocutaneous junction; oral mucosa; scaffold; skin; tissue engineering

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28752668     DOI: 10.1002/term.2530

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Tissue Eng Regen Med        ISSN: 1932-6254            Impact factor:   3.963


  7 in total

Review 1.  Decellularized Extracellular Matrix Materials for Cardiac Repair and Regeneration.

Authors:  Donald Bejleri; Michael E Davis
Journal:  Adv Healthc Mater       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 9.933

Review 2.  Full-Thickness Oral Mucoperiosteal Defects: Challenges and Opportunities.

Authors:  Brittany N Allen; Qi Wang; Yassine Filali; Kristan S Worthington; Deborah S F Kacmarynski
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part B Rev       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 7.376

3.  Use of confocal microscopy imaging for in vitro assessment of adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cells seeding on acellular dermal matrices: 3D reconstruction based on collagen autofluorescence.

Authors:  Alessia Paganelli; Elisabetta Tarentini; Luisa Benassi; Daniel Scelfo; Alessandra Pisciotta; Elena Rossi; Cristina Magnoni
Journal:  Skin Res Technol       Date:  2021-09-23       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Tissue scaffolds functionalized with therapeutic elastin-like biopolymer particles.

Authors:  Beyza Bulutoglu; Julie Devalliere; Sarah L Deng; Aylin Acun; Sarah S Kelangi; Basak E Uygun; Martin L Yarmush
Journal:  Biotechnol Bioeng       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 4.530

5.  Noninvasive Optical Assessment of Implanted Tissue-Engineered Construct Success In Situ.

Authors:  William R Lloyd; Seung Yup Lee; Sakib F Elahi; Leng-Chun Chen; Shiuhyang Kuo; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Cynthia Marcelo; Stephen E Feinberg; Mary-Ann Mycek
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part C Methods       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 3.056

Review 6.  The Role of the Extracellular Matrix (ECM) in Wound Healing: A Review.

Authors:  Robert B Diller; Aaron J Tabor
Journal:  Biomimetics (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-01

Review 7.  Immunomodulation of Skin Repair: Cell-Based Therapeutic Strategies for Skin Replacement (A Comprehensive Review).

Authors:  Shima Tavakoli; Marta A Kisiel; Thomas Biedermann; Agnes S Klar
Journal:  Biomedicines       Date:  2022-01-06
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.