| Literature DB >> 30586900 |
Panagiotis Mallis1, Panagiota Chachlaki2, Michalis Katsimpoulas3, Catherine Stavropoulos-Giokas4, Efstathios Michalopoulos5.
Abstract
Background: Current esophageal treatment is associated with significant morbidity. The gold standard therapeutic strategies are stomach interposition or autografts derived from the jejunum and colon. However, severe adverse reactions, such as esophageal leakage, stenosis and infection, accompany the above treatments, which, most times, are life threating. The aim of this study was the optimization of a decellularization protocol in order to develop a proper esophageal tissue engineered construct.Entities:
Keywords: Barret’s esophagus; CHAPS; SDS; decellularization; esophagus; histological images; tissue engineered construct
Year: 2018 PMID: 30586900 PMCID: PMC6466343 DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering6010003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) ISSN: 2306-5354
Figure 1Histological analysis of decellularized rat esophagi (rES) after the first and second cycles. Native rES stained with H&E (A1,A4), SR (A7), OS (A10) and TB (A13). Decellularized rES stained with H&E (A2,A3,A5,A6), SR (A8,A9), OS (A11,A12) and TB (A14,A15) after the first and second cycles, respectively. The black arrows indicate elastin preservation in decellularized esophagi after the first cycle. Images A1–A3 are presented with original magnification 2.5×; scale bars are 500 μm. Images A4–A15 are presented with original magnification 10×; scale bars are 100 μm. Indirect immunofluorescence against fibronectin in combination with DAPI in native (B1,B4,B7) and decellularized rES after the first (B2,B5,B8) and second (B3,B6,B9) cycles. Images B1–B3 are presented with original magnification 10×; scale bars are 100 μm. Images B4, B5 and B6 are presented with original magnification 20×; scale bars are 50 μm. Images B7, B8 and B9 are presented with original magnification 40×; scale bars are 25 μm.
Figure 2Morphometric analysis and biochemical quantification in rES. Macroscopic overview of native and decellularized rES after the first and second cycles (A). Measurement of length (B), mucosa thickness (C) and total thickness (D) in rES. Statistically significant differences were observed in the above parameters between native and decellularized rES either by the first (p < 0.005) or second cycle (p < 0.001); Biochemical quantification involved hydroxyproline measurement (E); sulfated glycosaminoglycans (sGAGs) (F) and DNA (G) content determination. Statistically significant differences were observed in collagen, sGAG and DNA content between native and decellularized rES either by the first (p < 0.05) or second cycle (p < 0.05).