| Literature DB >> 34747247 |
Matthew J Smith1, Sandi G Dempsey1, Robert Wf Veale1, Claudia G Duston-Fursman1, Chloe A F Rayner1, Chettha Javanapong1, Dane Gerneke2, Shane G Dowling1, Brandon A Bosque1, Tanvi Karnik1, Michael J Jerram1, Arun Nagarajan1, Ravinder Rajam1, Alister Jowsey1, Samuel Cutajar1, Isaac Mason1, Roderick G Stanley1, Andrew Campbell1, Jenny Malmstrom3, Chris H Miller1, Barnaby C H May1.
Abstract
Decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM)-based biomaterials are of great clinical utility in soft tissue repair applications due to their regenerative properties. Multi-layered dECM devices have been developed for clinical indications where additional thickness and biomechanical performance are required. However, traditional approaches to the fabrication of multi-layered dECM devices introduce additional laminating materials or chemical modifications of the dECM that may impair the biological functionality of the material. Using an established dECM biomaterial, ovine forestomach matrix, a novel method for the fabrication of multi-layered dECM constructs has been developed, where layers are bonded via a physical interlocking process without the need for additional bonding materials or detrimental chemical modification of the dECM. The versatility of the interlocking process has been demonstrated by incorporating a layer of hyaluronic acid to create a composite material with additional biological functionality. Interlocked composite devices including hyaluronic acid showed improved in vitro bioactivity and moisture retention properties.Entities:
Keywords: angioconduction; cell migration; decellularized extracellular matrix; hyaluronic acid; keratinocyte; ovine forestomach matrix; wound healing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34747247 PMCID: PMC8721687 DOI: 10.1177/08853282211045770
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomater Appl ISSN: 0885-3282 Impact factor: 2.646
Figure 1.(a). Simplified cross-section schematic of a composite device (‘CMP’), comprising OFM (black) and a layer of HA (hashed). Layers are interlocked via a ‘tab’ penetrating cross-sectionally through the layers. (b). Representative photograph of a hydrated layered device fabricated using the interlocking fabrication process. OFM: Ovine forestomach matrix-3; CMP: composite samples.
Figure 2.Visualization of OFM by atomic force microscopy. (a). 3D representation of the topography of intact collagen fibrils in the OFM material, and (b). An AFM amplitude image from the same area. OFM: Ovine forestomach matrix
Figure 3.Representative image of residual vascular channels imaged via (a). Dye perfusion (scale bar = 10 mm) and (b). MicroCT (scale bar = 100 μm). White dotted outline indicates residual vascular channel imaged via microCT.
Summary of biophysical properties of samples.
| OFM-3 | OFM-5 | CMP | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uniaxial | |||
| Load at failure ( | 12.02 ± 4.72 | 17.62 ± 7.08 | 10.05 ± 3.04 |
| Tensile strength (MPa) | 1.87 ± 0.73 | 1.66 ± 0.62 | 1.21 ± 0.36* |
| Strain at break (%) | 41.49 ± 10.04 | 39.69 ± 16.84 | 32.73 ± 10.54* |
| Elastic modulus (MPa) | 8.05 ± 3.11 | 7.06 ± 2.78 | 6.06 ± 2.19* |
| Biaxial | |||
| Breaking force ( | 148.54 ± 29.02 | 254.56 ± 42.79 | 111.45 ± 29.89* |
| Max. Displacement (mm) | 29.88 ± 1.57 | 30.17 ± 1.16 | 22.44 ± 1.26* |
| Suture retention | |||
| Max. Force ( | 10.91 ± 2.66 | 15.54 ± 2.37 | 5.28 ± 1.65* |
Values represent mean and error represent the standard deviation of n = 19 replicate samples; *p < .05 via 2-sample t-test compared with OFM-3.
OFM: Ovine forestomach matrix; CMP: composite samples.
Figure 4.Representative stress (%) vs strain (MPa) curves for OFM-3, OFM-5 and CMP devices.
Molecular weight and polydispersity of hyaluronic acid in ethylene oxide terminally sterilized GAGF (taken from a CMP sample) (‘Post-EO’), and GAGF prior to ethylene oxide terminal sterilization (‘Pre-EO’).
| GAGF Condition | Weight average molecular weight Mw (kDa) | Number average molecular weight Mn (kDa) | Polydispersity Mw/Mn | Intrinsic viscosity (η) (mL/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-EO | 1070 ± 7 | 788 ± 1 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 12.06 ± 0.33 |
| Post-EO | 656 ± 1 | 411 ± 2 | 1.6 ± 0.1 | 7.71 ± 0.07 |
Values represent average and standard deviations from duplicate samples; EO: ethylene oxide; Mn: average molecular weight; Mw: average polydispersity
Figure 5.Viscosity determination of HA in GAGF samples (taken from CMP devices) before (a) and after (b) ethylene oxide terminal sterilization. Reduced viscosity (solid markers) and inherent viscosity (open markers). GAGF: glycosaminoglycan foam; CMP: composite samples.
Moisture content of components (OFM-3 and GAGF) CMP.
| OFM | GAGF | CMP | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moisture content (%w/w) | 15.92 ± 1.46 | 18.79 ± 1.28 | 16.81 ± 0.96 |
Values represent average and errors represent the standard deviation of; OFM, n = 60; GAGF, n = 19; CMP, n = 19 replicate samples.
OFM: Ovine forestomach matrix; GAGF: glycosaminoglycan foam; CMP: composite samples.
Figure 6.Moisture retention of OFM-3 and CMP samples as a function of time at 37°C. Six replicates per sample, per time point. Lines represent linear regression (CMP R2 = 0.97; OFM-3 R2 = 0.84). OFM: Ovine forestomach matrix-3; CMP: composite samples. OFM: Ovine forestomach matrix-3; CMP: composite samples.
Figure 7.In vitro human keratinocyte migration. Representative images of scratched mono-layers at t = 0 h and t = 24 h for the test samples, media only (a), DMEM +10% serum (b), OFM-3 (c), HA (d), and CMP (e), (f) Quantification of average percent epithelial migration. Error bars represent standard deviation from triplicate independent experiments with n = 6 sample replicates per experiment. ****, p < .0001; ns = not significant. DMEM: Dulbeccós modified Eaglés Medium; OFM: Ovine forestomach matrix-3; CMP: composite samples.
Figure 8.In vitro human keratinocyte proliferation. Quantification of average percent change in proliferation, relative to the media-only control. Error bars represent standard deviation from triplicate independent experiments with n = 6 sample replicates per experiment. ***, p = .0001; ****, p < .0001 relative to the media only control; **, p < .01 CMP sample versus OFM-3 sample. OFM: Ovine forestomach matrix-3; CMP: composite samples.