| Literature DB >> 34856996 |
Xingyu Deng1, Xiabin Chen1, Fang Geng2, Xin Tang2, Zhenzhen Li1, Jie Zhang1, Yikai Wang3,4, Fangqian Wang3,4, Na Zheng5, Peng Wang6, Xiaohua Yu7,8,9, Shurong Hou10, Wei Zhang11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The poor regenerative capability and structural complexity make the reconstruction of meniscus particularly challenging in clinic. 3D printing of polymer scaffolds holds the promise of precisely constructing complex tissue architecture, however the resultant scaffolds usually lack of sufficient bioactivity to effectively generate new tissue.Entities:
Keywords: Chondrogenic differentiation; Meniscus; Scaffold; Tissue engineering
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34856996 PMCID: PMC8641190 DOI: 10.1186/s12951-021-01141-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nanobiotechnology ISSN: 1477-3155 Impact factor: 10.435
Primer sequences used for quantitative real-time PCR analysis of stem cell and chondrogenesis-associated specific genes
| Target gene | Sequence |
|---|---|
| GAPDH | F: TGTTGCCATCAATGACCCCTT |
| R: CTCCACGACGTACTCAGCG | |
| ACAN | F: TGAGGAGGGCTGGAACAAGTACC |
| R: GGAGGTGGTAATTGCAGGGAACA | |
| SOX9 | F: TTCATGAAGATGACCGACGA |
| R: CACACCATGAAGGCGTTCAT | |
| COL2A1 | F: GGCAATAGCAGGTTCACGTACA |
| R: CGATAACAGTCTTGCCCCACTTA | |
| COL1A1 | F: TCTGCGACAACGGCAAGGTG |
| R: GACGCCGGTGGTTTCTTGGT | |
| COL10A1 | F: CCAGGTCTGGATGGTCCTA |
| R: GTCCTCCAACTCCAGGATCA | |
| CD45 | F: ACGAAGCTCTTAGCGTCAGG |
| R: CTCTCGGGTGGAGTCTTCTG | |
| CD73 | F: CAGTACCAGGGCACTATCTGG |
| R: AGTGGCCCCTTTGCTTTAAT | |
| CD90 | F: GACAGCCTGAGAGGGTCTTG |
| R: CCCAGTGAAGATGCAGGTTT | |
| CD105 | F: CACTAGCCAGGTCTCGAAGG |
| R: CTGAGGACCAGAAGCACCTC |
Fig. 1Schematic overview of the study of 3D porous PU meniscus constructs for tissue regeneration
Fig. 23D printed meniscus-like scaffold characterization: A Goat meniscus and designed model; B Scaffold optimization in porosity; C Representative SEM images of 3D printed scaffold. Scale bar a 1.0 mm; b 300 µm; c 50 µm; d 10 µm
Fig. 33D printed PU scaffold characterizations: A FT-IR spectra of PU scaffolds; B X-ray diffraction analysis of PU scaffolds; C X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy of S2p scan for PU and PU/FN scaffolds confirming FN absorption on the scaffolds; D Contact angles of water on PU and PU/FN scaffolds; E Zeta potentials of PU and PU/FN scaffolds in the pH range from 3 to 10; F TG/DTG curves of PU and PU/FN scaffolds under N2 atmosphere
Fig. 4Biocompatibility of scaffolds evaluated by subcutaneous implantation on SD rats followed by HE staining (n = 3). A Observation of the skin and subcutaneous tissues of the original surgical site in the fascia of the rat back skin. B Representative H&E staining images of the tissues surrounding the implants (a and c), and interior tissues of the explants (b and d)
Fig. 5hMSC cell growth over time on treated scaffolds (PBS: no protein treatment; COL: 1 mg/mL collagen I; FN-50: 50 µg/mL fibronectin; FN-200: 200 µg/mL fibronectin) assessed by A cell viability assay (n = 3) and B live/dead staining
Fig. 6A Scheme diagram of cell seeding and different sections of a scaffold; B hMSCs distribution on scaffolds under different treatments
Fig. 7hMSCs morphology on scaffolds under different treatments at higher magnification
Fig. 8Chondrogenic differentiation of hMSCs cultured for 14 days on scaffolds assessed by qRT- PCR analysis of relative gene expression levels (n = 3). GAPDH was used as an internal control, and the values are given as the fold change compared to PUS/GM group. *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01
Fig. 9Chondrogenic differentiation of hMSCs cultured for 21 days on scaffolds assessed by qRT-PCR analysis of relative gene expression levels (n = 3). GAPDH was used as an internal control, and the values are given as the fold change compared to TCF/GM group. *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01
Fig. 10Chondrogenic differentiation of hMSCs cultured for 21 days on scaffolds assessed by A immunostaining of aggrecan and collagen II expression, and B western blot analysis of aggrecan, collagen II, ERK and pERK expression (n = 2). The relative expression values are given as the fold change compared to PUS/GM group. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001