| Literature DB >> 30081528 |
Gabriela S Diogo1,2, Estefânia L Senra3, Rogério P Pirraco4,5, Raphael F Canadas6,7, Emanuel M Fernandes8,9, Julia Serra10, Ricardo I Pérez-Martín11, Carmen G Sotelo12, Alexandra P Marques13,14, Pio González15, Joana Moreira-Silva16,17, Tiago H Silva18,19, Rui L Reis20,21,22.
Abstract
The high prevalence of bone defects has become a worldwide problem. Despite the significant amount of research on the subject, the available therapeutic solutions lack efficiency. Autografts, the most commonly used approaches to treat bone defects, have limitations such as donor site morbidity, pain and lack of donor site. Marine resources emerge as an attractive alternative to extract bioactive compounds for further use in bone tissue-engineering approaches. On one hand they can be isolated from by-products, at low cost, creating value from products that are considered waste for the fish transformation industry. One the other hand, religious constraints will be avoided. We isolated two marine origin materials, collagen from shark skin (Prionace glauca) and calcium phosphates from the teeth of two different shark species (Prionace glauca and Isurus oxyrinchus), and further proposed to mix them to produce 3D composite structures for hard tissue applications. Two crosslinking agents, 1-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl]-3-ethylcarbodiimide hydrochloride/N-Hydroxysuccinimide (EDC/NHS) and hexamethylene diisocyanate (HMDI), were tested to enhance the scaffolds' properties, with EDC/NHS resulting in better properties. The characterization of the structures showed that the developed composites could support attachment and proliferation of osteoblast-like cells. A promising scaffold for the engineering of bone tissue is thus proposed, based on a strategy of marine by-products valorisation.Entities:
Keywords: bone tissue engineering; calcium-phosphates; collagen; composites; marine biomaterials; shark by-products
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30081528 PMCID: PMC6117652 DOI: 10.3390/md16080269
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 5.118
Scheme 1Schematic representation of crosslinking reactions for 1-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl]-3-ethylcarbodiimide hydrochloride (EDC) and hexamethylene diisocyanate (HMDI) crosslinking agents.
Elemental composition (% of weight) of bioapatite determined by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) and ion chromatography analysis.
| Element | Weight (%) |
|---|---|
| Ca | 44.364 ± 5 |
| P | 22.8 ± 2.3 |
| F | 1.0 ± 0.5 |
| Na | 0.9 ± 0.2 |
| Mg | 0.65 ± 0.04 |
| Sr | 0.25 ± 0.02 |
| K | 0.018 ± 0.002 |
| Al | 0.007 ± 0.005 |
| Fe | 0.006 ± 0.003 |
Figure 1Representative composite scaffolds of mCol:mBAp.
Stability of the produced scaffolds after 14 days in culture medium at 37 °C. (−) represent the structures that were completely degraded 1 day after culture medium, (+) structures that were completely degraded 7 days after incubation (++) structures that maintained integrity 14 days after culture incubation.
| mCol:mBAp | 25% EDC/NHS | 12.5% EDC/NHS | 1% HMDI | 5% HMDI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100:0 | + | − | − | − |
| 70:30 | ++ | ++ | − | ++ |
| 50:50 | ++ | ++ | − | ++ |
| 30:70 | ++ | ++ | − | ++ |
Figure 2Representative scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of different mCol crosslinked scaffolds showing the crosslink effect over the microstructure. 25% (A) and 12.5% (B) EDC/NHS composite scaffolds´ and 5% (C) and 1% HMDI (D) composite scaffolds’.
Figure 3Representative images of 12.5% EDC/NHS crosslinked scaffolds obtained by microcomputed tomography (microCT). (A) X-ray 2D projection and respective (B) 3D reconstruction of acquired structures in which the first column shows a reconstruction of both polymeric and ceramic phases, and the second column shows the reconstruction of the ceramic phase. A homogeneous distribution of the materials is observed, according to a colour scale: blue—soft material (mCol); brown—hard material (mBAp).
Microarchitecture features of the different mCol:mBAp composite scaffolds determined by microCT analysis.
| mCol:mBAp | Crosslinker | Mean Pore Size (µm) | Porosity (%) | Trabecular Thickness (µm) | Inter-Connectivity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100:0 | 25% EDC:NHS | 45.5 ± 11.7 | 48.8 ± 14.8 | 45.1 ± 8.7 | 46.4 ± 15.9 |
| 100:0 | 12.5% EDC:NHS | 64.1 ± 5.7 | 72.7 ± 1.8 | 35.4 ± 5.4 | 69.3 ± 7.7 |
| 100:0 | 5% HMDI | 52.7 ± 11.0 | 76.3 ± 4.2 | 27.9 ± 5.5 | 81.5 ± 8.5 |
| 100:0 | 1% HMDI | 115.1 ± 35.6 | 87.2 ± 1.3 | 33.2 ± 2.9 | 69.4 ± 15.1 |
| 70:30 | 25% EDC:NHS | 56.5 ± 10.7 | 48.9 ± 3.4 | 51.9 ± 4.6 | 54.3 ± 1.9 |
| 70:30 | 12.5% EDC:NHS | 83.4 ± 11.8 | 78.3 ± 5.7 | 39.4 ± 1.6 | 92.1 ± 3.0 |
| 70:30 | 5% HMDI | 147.0 ± 38.4 | 90.4 ± 3.2 | 41.6 ± 2.7 | 97.3 ± 1.8 |
| 70:30 | 1% HMDI | 161.4 ± 13.7 | 91.8 ± 2.0 | 44.4 ± 3.2 | 97.4 ± 2.1 |
| 50:50 | 25% EDC:NHS | 50.5 ± 1.6 | 49.0 ± 3.1 | 47.9 ± 2.3 | 49.8 ± 4.8 |
| 50:50 | 12.5% EDC:NHS | 126.3 ± 22.5 | 85.4 ± 3.2 | 43.3 ± 0.67 | 96.8 ± 1.8 |
| 50:50 | 5% HMDI | 142.6 + 24.1 | 89.4 ± 3.0 | 43.2 ± 2.2 | 97.4 ± 1.6 |
| 50:50 | 1% HMDI | 155.1 ± 31.3 | 87.8 ± 5.3 | 46.1 ± 4.6 | 87.0 ± 11.8 |
| 30:70 | 25% EDC:NHS | 113.8 ± 16.0 | 69.3 ± 1.3 | 52.8 ± 2.1 | 65.7 ± 7.9 |
| 30:70 | 12.5% EDC:NHS | 104.4 ± 15.7 | 73.9 ± 1.9 | 47.0 ± 1.2 | 85.4 ± 2.4 |
| 30:70 | 5% HMDI | 62.6 ± 6.8 | 67.5 ± 4.2 | 40.8 ± 1.7 | 68.8 ± 9.8 |
| 30:70 | 1% HMDI | 172.0 ± 43.3 | 86.8 ± 8.2 | 46.8 ± 6.0 | 89.5 ± 9.5 |
Figure 4Representative scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of the mCol:mBAp composites scaffolds before and 14 days after the simulated body fluid (SBF) test confirming the bioactive nature of the formulations as shown by the presence of mineralized deposits.
Figure 5Compressive modulus of mCol:mBAp scaffolds crosslinked under different conditions. The Kuskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparison test with a p value lower than 0.05 (* p < 0.05) was considered statistically significant.
Figure 6Representative example of a stress–strain curve for the mCol:mBAp composite scaffolds.
Figure 7Metabolic activity of Saos-2 cells cultured in contact with mCol:mBAp scaffolds crosslinked with (A) 12.5% EDC/NHS and (B) 5% HMDI. Results are the mean ± standard error of three independent experiments. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kuskal–Wallis test with Dunns multiple comparison test (* p < 0.05).
Figure 8Saos-2 cell line adhered on 12.5% EDC/NHS composites 24 h after seeding and remains viable after 72 h. The majority of the cells are viable (green) as demonstrated by the abundant calcein (AM) stained cells in relation to the propidium iodide (PI) stained dead cells (red).