| Literature DB >> 30650528 |
Tzu-Hsiang Lin1, Hsueh-Chun Wang2, Wen-Hui Cheng3, Horng-Chaung Hsu4, Ming-Long Yeh5,6.
Abstract
Repairing damagedEntities:
Keywords: PLGA; bilayer; chondrocyte; osteochondral regeneration; tyramine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30650528 PMCID: PMC6359257 DOI: 10.3390/ijms20020326
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1SEM images of bilayered porous poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) scaffolds. (A) Macroscopic view of the scaffold. (B–G) Microscopic views of the scaffold: high magnification image of large pores (200×) (B); high magnification image of small pores (200×) (C); low magnification image of large pores (50×) (D); low magnification image of small pores (50×) (E); bilayered PLGA scaffold (50×) (F); and light micrograph of a frozen section of a bilayered PLGA scaffold (G). The yellow dotted line in (F) and (G) represents the boundary between the lower (large pore) and upper (small pore) layers. Scale bar: 100 μm.
Compressive modulus and porosity of PLGA scaffolds with different pore sizes. Values represent mean ± SD (n = six per group for compressive modulus; n = five per group for porosity analysis).
| Pore Type | Compressive Modulus (MPa) | Porosity (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Large pores | 0.517 ± 0.01 | 88.807 ± 1.29 |
| Small pores | 0.516 ± 0.01 | 89.532 ± 1.38 |
| Mixed sized pores | 0.517 ± 0.01 | 88.997 ± 1.28 |
Figure 2Images of chondrocytes on PLGA scaffolds with different pores sizes after one and five days of culture. The cell membrane was labeled with red fluorescent dye. (A,B,G,H) Light micrographs. (C,D,I,J) Fluorescence micrographs. (E,F,K,L) Merged light and fluorescence micrographs. The red and blue boxes indicate the images of cells on PLGA scaffolds at day one and five, respectively. Scale bar: 20 μm. (M–P) SEM images of cell-seeded PLGA scaffold with a small pore size: images of cells cultured on PLGA scaffolds on day one (M,N) and day five (O,P). The area enclosed by the yellow box is shown enlarged to the right. Scale bar: 10 μm.
Figure 3Water contact angle and results of surface analysis by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) of untreated and surface-treated PLGA scaffolds. (A,D) Untreated scaffolds. (B,E) Ethylenediamine (ED)-treated scaffolds. (C,F) Tyramine-treated scaffolds.
Water contact angle of surface-treated bilayered PLGA scaffolds. Values represent mean ± SD (n = 8). ** p < 0.01 versus the untreated PLGA group; ## p < 0.01: ED-treated group versus the tyramine-treated group.
| Contact Angle Analysis | Untreated PLGA | Ethylenediamine-Treated PLGA | Tyramine-Treated PLGA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contact angle (°) | 68.08 ± 1.8° | ** 57.10 ± 2.14° | **,## 52.58 ± 1.43° |
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy analysis of surface element composition of surface-treated bilayered PLGA scaffolds.
| Surface Treatment | Atom | Atomic Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Untreated | C | 76.53 |
| O | 22.60 | |
| N | 0.87 | |
| Ethylenediamine-treated | C | 69.26 |
| O | 29.50 | |
| N | 1.24 | |
| Tyramine-treated | C | 71.54 |
| O | 26.89 | |
| N | 1.57 |
Figure 4(A) Cell viability. Values represent mean ± SD (n = 6). * p < 0.05 and # p < 0.05: ED-treated or tyramine-treated groups versus the untreated PLGA group, respectively. & p < 0.05: ED-treated group versus the tyramine-treated PLGA group. (B) Push-out test results for untreated and surface-treated PLGA scaffolds. Values represent mean ± SD (n = 4). * p < 0.05. (C) Cell adherence of chondrocytes cultured in untreated, ED- or tyramine-treated PLGA scaffolds at day one. Values represent mean ± SD (n = 4). * p < 0.05 and ## p < 0.01: ED- or tyramine-treated groups versus the untreated PLGA group, respectively.
Figure 5Histological analysis of co-cultured bilayered PLGA scaffold and porcine osteochondral plug by hematoxylin and eosin staining. (A) Magnification: 40×; scale bar: 200 μm. (B) Magnification: 100×; scale bar: 100 μm. Red double-headed arrows (←→) indicate the defect area after tissue regeneration. Yellow dotted boxes indicate the defect area before tissue regeneration. White boxes indicate that the images of tissue regeneration area were amplified.
Figure 6Histological analysis of co-cultured bilayered PLGA scaffold and porcine osteochondral plug by Alcian blue staining. Magnification: 40×; scale bar: 200 μm. Red double-headed arrows (←→) indicate the defect area after tissue regeneration. Yellow dotted boxes indicate the defect area before tissue regeneration.
Figure 7(A,B) Immunohistochemical detection of collagen type X (Col X) (A) and collagen type II (Col II) (B) in a co-cultured bilayered PLGA scaffold and porcine osteochondral plug. Magnification: 40×; scale bar: 200 μm. Red double-headed arrows (←→) indicate the defect area after tissue regeneration. Yellow dotted boxes indicate the defect area before tissue regeneration. White dotted lines are used to distinguish the areas for cartilage and subchondral bone.
Figure 8Fabrication of osteochondral host tissue plug and ex vivo co-culture of plug tissue and cell-seeded surface-treated scaffold. (A) Schematic illustration of porcine plug manufacture and co-culture of plug tissue and cell-seeded, surface-treated scaffold. Thick white arrows indicate the processes of osteochondral plug manufacture and the cell-seeded surface-treated scaffold implantation; thin black arrow indicates the implantation of cell-seeded surface-treated scaffold in porcine plug; the blue cylinder indicates the cell-seeded surface-treated scaffold. (B) Femoral condyles of porcine knee joints. (C) An osteochondral tissue plug was created using an eight-mm diameter hole driller. (D) Porcine femur after plug removal. (E) A three-mm defect was drilled into the osteochondral plug. (F) A three-mm cell-seeded bilayered PLGA scaffold was pressed into the defect.