| Literature DB >> 32523727 |
Marley J Dewey1, Eileen M Johnson2, Simona T Slater3, Derek J Milner4, Matthew B Wheeler2,4,5, Brendan A C Harley3,4.
Abstract
Defects in craniofacial bones occur congenitally, after high-energy impacts, and during the course of treatment for stroke and cancer. These injuries are difficult to heal due to the overwhelming size of the injury area and the inflammatory environment surrounding the injury. Significant inflammatory response after injury may greatly inhibit regenerative healing. We have developed mineralized collagen scaffolds that can induce osteogenic differentiation and matrix biosynthesis in the absence of osteogenic media or supplemental proteins. The amniotic membrane is derived from placentas and has been recently investigated as an extracellular matrix to prevent chronic inflammation. Herein, we hypothesized that a mineralized collagen-amnion composite scaffold could increase osteogenic activity in the presence of inflammatory cytokines. We report mechanical properties of a mineralized collagen-amnion scaffold and investigated osteogenic differentiation and mineral deposition of porcine adipose-derived stem cells within these scaffolds as a function of inflammatory challenge. Incorporation of amniotic membrane matrix promotes osteogenesis similarly to un-modified mineralized collagen scaffolds, and increases in mineralized collagen-amnion scaffolds under inflammatory challenge. Together, these findings suggest that a mineralized collagen-amnion scaffold may provide a beneficial environment to aid craniomaxillofacial bone repair, especially in the course of defects presenting significant inflammatory complications.Entities:
Keywords: amniotic membrane; inflammation; mineralized collagen scaffolds; osteogenesis; stem cell
Year: 2020 PMID: 32523727 PMCID: PMC7266662 DOI: 10.1093/rb/rbaa005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Regen Biomater ISSN: 2056-3426
Figure 1Experimental outline. Hypothesis 1: mineralized collagen–amnion scaffolds will further promote osteogenesis and mineral formation compared to mineralized collagen scaffolds. Hypothesis 2: mineralized collagen–amnion scaffolds placed in inflammatory conditions (normal growth medium supplemented with IL-1β) will continue to promote osteogenesis due to the immunomodulatory nature of the amniotic membrane
Figure 2Isolation of amniotic membrane from placentas and synthesis of mineralized collagen and mineralized collagen–amnion scaffolds
Antibodies used in western blots
| Protein | Blocking | Primary antibody | Secondary antibody |
|---|---|---|---|
| β-actin (45 kDa) | 5% dry milk in TBST | 1:1000 in 5% dry milk (Cell Signaling Technologies, Rabbit mAB, 4967) | 1:2500 in TBST, anti-rabbit IgG, HRP-linked antibody (Cell Signaling Technologies, 7074) |
| ERK1/2 (42–44 kDa) | 1:1000 in 5% dry milk (Cell Signaling Technologies, Rabbit mAB, 9102) | ||
| p-ERK1/2 (44–42 kDa) | 1:1000 in 5% dry milk (Cell Signaling Technologies, Rabbit mAB, 9101) | ||
| p38 (40 kDa) | 1:1000 in 5% dry milk (Cell Signaling Technologies, Rabbit mAB, 9211) | ||
| p-p38 (43 kDa) | 1:1000 in 5% dry milk (Cell Signaling Technologies, Rabbit mAB, 9215) | ||
| AKT (60 kDa) | 1:1000 in 5% dry milk (Cell Signaling Technologies, Rabbit mAB, 9272) | ||
| p-AKT (60 kDa) | 1:2000 in 5% dry milk (Cell Signaling Technologies, Rabbit mAB, 4060) |
Primers for RT-PCR
| Gene | Primer information |
|---|---|
|
| Taqman (Ss03375629_u1) |
| Bio-Rad (PrimePCR assay, GAPDH, Ssc) | |
|
| Taqman (Ss03375009_u1) |
|
| Taqman (Ss03373655_s1) |
|
| Taqman (Ss03373798_g1) |
| Osterix (LOC404701) | Taqman (Ss03373734_s1) |
|
| Taqman (Ss03392437_m1) |
|
| Bio-Rad (PrimePCR assay, RUNX2, Ssc) |
Figure 3SEM imaging and pore size analysis of mineralized collagen and mineralized collagen–amnion scaffolds. (A) SEM image of the amniotic membrane. (B) SEM image of a mineralized collagen scaffold. (C) SEM image of a mineralized collagen–amnion scaffold. (D) Representative images of mineralized collagen and mineralized collagen–amnion scaffolds sectioned transversely and longitudinally and stained with aniline blue to determine pore size. (E) Average pore size of mineralized collagen and mineralized collagen–amnion scaffolds. * indicates that the mineralized collagen scaffold has a significantly (P < 0.05) higher average pore size than the mineralized collagen–amnion scaffold. Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3)
Figure 4Mechanical compression testing of mineralized collagen and mineralized collagen–amnion scaffolds. Elastic modulus is represented by E*, collapsed strain is represented by ε*, and collapsed stress is indicated by σ*. * indicates significantly (P < 0.05) greater average value of the mineralized collagen–amnion scaffold than the mineralized collagen scaffold. Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 8)
Figure 5Cell viability of mineralized collagen and mineralized collagen–amnion scaffolds in normal growth media and inflammatory media. Metabolic activity was measured by an alamarBlue assay, with a value of 1 representing the metabolic activity of 100 000 cells seeded on the scaffolds at the start of the experiment. Cell number was measured by a Hoechst DNA assay and 100 000 cells were initially seeded on the scaffolds. (A) Metabolic activity and cell number of mineralized collagen scaffolds compared to mineralized collagen–amnion scaffolds in normal growth media. (B) Metabolic activity and cell number of mineralized collagen–amnion scaffolds in normal growth media and inflammatory media. * indicates that the metabolic activity or cell number of the mineralized collagen scaffolds is significantly (P < 0.05) greater than the mineralized collagen–amnion scaffolds on the same day. ^ indicates that the metabolic activity or cell number of one scaffold type was significantly (P < 0.05) greater than the same scaffold type at Day 0. Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (alamarBlue: n = 6, Hoechst: n = 5)
Figure 6Osteogenic gene expression of mineralized collagen–amnion scaffolds in normal growth media and inflammatory media. Gene expression was evaluated by RT-PCR and normalized to the expression of cells before seeding on scaffolds. * indicates that the mineralized collagen scaffold was significantly (P < 0.05) greater than the mineralized collagen–amnion scaffold on the same day. Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 5)
Figure 7Mineral formation in mineralized collagen and mineralized collagen–amnion scaffolds in normal growth media. Average mineral fill was quantified by ImageJ processing of micro-CT stacks of mineralized collagen and mineralized collagen–amnion scaffolds. (A) Mineral formation of mineralized collagen scaffolds and mineralized collagen–amnion scaffolds in normal growth media without cells at Day (−1) and with cells at Day 28. No significance was found between all samples. (B) Mineralized collagen–amnion scaffolds in normal growth media and inflammatory media. ^ indicates that the Day 28 inflammatory media group was significantly (P < 0.05) greater than the Day (−1) unseeded group. Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3)