| Literature DB >> 32929372 |
Xuelei Shi1,2, Yanxiang Cheng3, Jian Wang1,2, Haoxiang Chen1,2, Xiaocheng Wang1, Xinghuan Li1, Weihong Tan1, Zhikai Tan1,2.
Abstract
Rationale: Tumors are commonly treated by resection, which usually leads to massiveEntities:
Keywords: Biofabrication; Environment response; Hemostasis; Prevention of tumor recurrence; Wound healing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32929372 PMCID: PMC7482818 DOI: 10.7150/thno.47933
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Theranostics ISSN: 1838-7640 Impact factor: 11.556
Figure 1Fabrication of the intelligent scaffold. Drug-loaded scaffolds were printed by electro-hydrodynamic jet 3D printing, then sandwiched between a gelatin-chitosan gel. Scaffolds were implanted in vivo to absorb hemorrhage and cell residues after surgery, and to inhibit cancer cells and circulating tumor cells.
Figure 2Preparation and characterization of the intelligent scaffold. (A) Optical images of the PLGA-DOX-5FU (PD5) scaffold (left) and the intelligent scaffold (IS, right). (B) Micro-CT images of the IS. (C) Images of the IS using a field emission scanning electron microscope (upper row) and an environmental scanning electron microscope (bottom row, the dotted lines indicate the PD5 scaffold).
Figure 3Biocompatibility and cell viability of the intelligent scaffold. (A) Schematic diagram of using the intelligent scaffold (IS) to a bleeding site. (B) Coagulation ability of the gelatin-chitosan (GC) scaffold and IS in vitro. (C) Blood clotting index of GC scaffold and IS. (D) Water and blood absorption ability of GC scaffold and IS. (E) Hemostasis of IS in vivo. (F) H&E staining of IS (upper row) and skins (bottom row: natural skin tissue and regenerated tissue near the IS) after implantation for 30 days. (G) SEM images of IS after implantation for 30 days (red circles indicate absorbed and infiltrated cells). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.
Figure 4Skin repair assessment using the various scaffolds. (A) Schematic diagram of the process. (B) Images of wound healing of mice treated with gauze (control), PD5 scaffold, and the intelligent scaffold (IS). (C) Quantification of wound closure within 10 days. (D) The ratios of wound closure and residual area after 30 days. (E) H&E staining images of normal skin and wound area after treatment for 5, 10, and 30 days with control, PD5 scaffold, and IS. (F) Masson staining images of normal skin and wound area after treatment for 5, 10, and 30 days with control, PD5 scaffold, and IS. (G) Quantification of the epidermal thickness and area of different groups from the H&E staining images. (H) Quantification of the epidermal thickness and area of different groups from the Masson staining images. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.005.
Figure 5Live cell staining of cells treated with DOX+5FU mixed solutions, the PD5 scaffold, and the intelligent scaffold (IS), respectively. Untreated cells were used as the control. (B) The number of surviving cells after the respective treatments. (C) Drug release profile of the IS under different pH values. (D) The drug uptake in cells after treatment for 10 h. (E) Immunofluorescence staining of treated cells on days 1 and 2. (F) Quantification of DOX fluorescence intensity of cells in panel D. (G) Quantification of Ki67 fluorescence intensity in cells on days 1 and 2 from panel E. (H) Quantification of the Bcl-2/Bax ratio on days 1 and 2 from panel E.
Figure 6Therapeutic efficacy of scaffolds. (A) Visible light images and in vivo fluorescence images of nude mice after 30 days of treatment. (B) Photographs of recurrent tumors and lungs after 30 days of treatment. (C) H&E staining of recurrent tumors, hearts, and lungs (the blue dotted frames indicate the tumor lesions). (D) Immunohistochemical analysis of sections of recurrent tumor stained with anti-Caspase-3 and anti-Ki67 antibodies. (E) Changes in body weight and (F) growth of recurrent tumor during various treatments. (G) Postoperative recurrence rate and (H) survival curve of mice during various treatments. *P < 0.05.