| Literature DB >> 32429544 |
Victor Perez-Puyana1, Mercedes Jiménez-Rosado2, Alberto Romero1, Antonio Guerrero2.
Abstract
Regenerative medicine is increasingly focused on the development of biomaterials that facilitate cell adhesion and proliferation through the use of natural polymers, which have better biocompatibility and biodegradability. In this way, the use of hydrogels has been considered as a potential option for tissue engineering due to their physical and chemical characteristics. However, few studies associate the raw materials properties and processing conditions with the final characteristics of hydrogels, which could condition their use as scaffolds for tissue engineering. In this context, the main objective of this work was the evaluation of type I collagen as raw material for the elaboration of hydrogels. In addition, gelation time, pH and temperature were evaluated as the most influential variables in the hydrogel processing method by rheological (time, strain and frequency sweep tests) and microstructural (Cryo-SEM) measurements. The results indicate that it is possible to obtain collagen hydrogels with adequate rheological and microstructural characteristics by selecting optimal processing conditions. However, further studies are necessary to assess their suitability for cell accommodation and growth.Entities:
Keywords: Cryo-SEM; gelatinised collagen; hydrogel; rheology; tissue engineering
Year: 2020 PMID: 32429544 PMCID: PMC7284593 DOI: 10.3390/polym12051146
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Protein solubility (%) and Z-Potential (mV) of the collagen protein isolate.
Figure 2FTIR profile of the collagen protein isolate.
Figure 3(A) Time sweep test of a collagen hydrogel (the arrows included indicate the gelation times selected for the further study) and (B) evolution of the elastic and viscous moduli (G’ and G’’, respectively) of the collagen hydrogels processed at different gelation times (1, 2 and 4 h).
G’, tan δ and η* at 1 Hz (G’1, tan δ1 and η*1) and critical strain of the hydrogels as a function of the gelation time (1, 2 and 4 h).
| Gelation Time | γc (-) | G’1 (Pa) | tan δ1 (-) | η*1 (Pa·s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 h | 0.48 ± 0.08 I | 0.53 ± 0.12 a | 0.52 ± 0.01 A | 0.27 ± 0.06 α |
| 2 h | 1.01 ± 0.05 II | 1.58 ± 0.42 b | 0.15 ± 0.03 B | 0.85 ± 0.26 β |
| 4 h | 1.01 ± 0.11 II | 2.55 ± 0.97 b | 0.14 ± 0.04 B | 1.74 ± 0.81 β |
I, II, a, b, A, B, α, βValues with different letters are significantly different.
G’, tan δ and η* at 1 Hz (G’1, tan δ1 and η*1) and critical strain of the hydrogels as a function of the pH (3, 5, 6.5, 8 and 10) and the gelation temperature (4 and 20 °C).
| Temperature | pH | γc (-) | G’1 (Pa) | tan δ1 (-) | η*1 (Pa·s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 °C | 3 | 1.01 ± 0.05 I | 1.58 ± 0.42 a | 0.15 ± 0.03 A | 0.85 ± 0.26 α |
| 5 | 1.01 ± 0.20 I | 0.22 ± 0.05 b | 2.69 ± 0.33 B | 0.25 ± 0.08 β | |
| 6.5 | 0.69 ± 0.10 II | 0.01 ± 0.01 c | 37.24 ± 3.09 C | 0.21 ± 0.03 β | |
| 8 | 1.01 ± 0.01 I | 0.78 ± 0.33 d | 0.62 ± 0.12 D | 0.52 ± 0.07 γ | |
| 10 | 1.01 ± 0.03 I | 0.82 ± 0.16 d | 0.68 ± 0.14 D | 0.34 ± 0.01 δ | |
| 20 °C | 3 | 0.42 ± 0.08 III | 1.01 ± 0.36 ad | 0.36 ± 0.05 E | 0.57 ± 0.17 γ |
| 5 | 0.48 ± 0.11 III | 0.29 ± 0.04 b | 0.75 ± 0.24 D | 0.15 ± 0.03 β | |
| 6.5 | 0.27 ± 0.05 IV | 0.55 ± 0.15 d | 0.58 ± 0.10 D | 0.31 ± 0.14 β | |
| 8 | 1.03 ± 0.12 I | 1.52 ± 0.45 a | 0.22 ± 0.02 F | 0.90 ± 0.25 α | |
| 10 | 1.01 ± 0.21 I | 1.38 ± 0.53 ad | 0.23 ± 0.04 F | 0.85 ± 0.19 α |
I, II, III, IV, a, b, c, d, ad, A, B, C, D, E, F, α, β, γ, δ Different letters were included to indicate significant differences between the values obtained.
Figure 4Frequency sweep tests of the hydrogels obtained at 4 and 20 °C and different pH values: (A) pH = 3; (B) pH = 5; (C) pH = 6.5 and (D) pH = 10.
Figure 5Cryo-SEM images of the hydrogels studied: (A) pH 10 at 20 °C; (B) pH 3 at 4 °C and (C) pore size distribution of both hydrogels produced with the selected conditions.