| Literature DB >> 35386356 |
Biao Yang1,2,3, Chengzhen Liang1,2,3, Di Chen4, Feng Cheng1,2,3, Yuang Zhang1,2,3, Shaoke Wang1,2,3, Jiawei Shu1,2,3, Xianpeng Huang1,2,3, Jingkai Wang1,2,3, Kaishun Xia1,2,3, Liwei Ying1,2,3, Kesi Shi1,2,3, Chenggui Wang1,2,3, Xuhua Wang1,5, Fangcai Li1,2,3, Qian Zhao6, Qixin Chen1,2,3.
Abstract
The current effective method for treatment of spinal cord injury (SCI) is to reconstruct the biological microenvironment by filling the injured cavity area and increasing neuronal differentiation of neural stem cells (NSCs) to repair SCI. However, the method is characterized by several challenges including irregular wounds, and mechanical and electrical mismatch of the material-tissue interface. In the current study, a unique and facile agarose/gelatin/polypyrrole (Aga/Gel/PPy, AGP3) hydrogel with similar conductivity and modulus as the spinal cord was developed by altering the concentration of Aga and PPy. The gelation occurred through non-covalent interactions, and the physically crosslinked features made the AGP3 hydrogels injectable. In vitro cultures showed that AGP3 hydrogel exhibited excellent biocompatibility, and promoted differentiation of NSCs toward neurons whereas it inhibited over-proliferation of astrocytes. The in vivo implanted AGP3 hydrogel completely covered the tissue defects and reduced injured cavity areas. In vivo studies further showed that the AGP3 hydrogel provided a biocompatible microenvironment for promoting endogenous neurogenesis rather than glial fibrosis formation, resulting in significant functional recovery. RNA sequencing analysis further indicated that AGP3 hydrogel significantly modulated expression of neurogenesis-related genes through intracellular Ca2+ signaling cascades. Overall, this supramolecular strategy produces AGP3 hydrogel that can be used as favorable biomaterials for SCI repair by filling the cavity and imitating the physiological properties of the spinal cord.Entities:
Keywords: Biomimetic scaffolds; Conducting polymer; Nerve regeneration; Spinal cord injury; Supramolecular hydrogels
Year: 2021 PMID: 35386356 PMCID: PMC8941182 DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.11.032
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioact Mater ISSN: 2452-199X
Scheme 1Schematic illustration of (A) preparation and (B) application of the AGP3 hydrogels to SCI repair.
Fig. 1Characterization of hydrogels. (A) SEM images of AG, AGP1, AGP2 and AGP3 hydrogels. (B) Element analysis of AGP3 hydrogels via EDX. (C) FTIR spectra of PPy powder and AGP3 hydrogel. (D) Swelling ratio of the four types of hydrogels. (E) Photographs showing that the AGP3 hydrogel could adhere tightly to the spinal cord and glass. (F) AGP3 hydrogels were injected by a 26G syringe. (G) Photographic presentation of the thermal reversibilities (sol-gel transition) of the AGP3 hydrogel.
Fig. 2Electrical and mechanical properties of the hydrogel. (A) The rheological properties of different hydrogels and the related storage modulus. (B) The photo of the custom-made testing mould. (C) The impedances of the four types of hydrogels. (D) Phase curves of the AG and AGP3 hydrogel. (E) The conductivities of hydrogels with different PPy content.
Fig. 3In vivo biocompatibility assessment. (A) Representative images of tissue sections staining GFAP and CD68 from different groups at 2 weeks after SCI. (B) Quantitative analysis of CD68+ cells. (C) Immunofluorescence images of Iba-1/GFAP+ cells in different groups at 2 weeks post-surgery. (D) Fluorescence quantitative analysis of Iba-1+ cells. (E) Representative images of GFAP and Laminin immunostaining of the spinal cord at 6 weeks after injury. (F) Quantitative data of relative intensities of Laminin+ fibroblast scar. (G) Representative images of GFAP and Fibronectin immunostaining of the spinal cord at 6 weeks after injury. (H) Quantitative data of relative intensities of Fibronectin+ fibroblast scar at the lesion site.
Fig. 4In vivo glial scar formation assessment. (A) Representative images of tissue sections staining GFAP from different groups at 2 weeks after SCI. (B) Quantitative analysis of GFAP + cells. (C) Images of CS-56 and GFAP immunostaining of spinal sections at 6 weeks after injury. (D) Quantification of relative intensities of CS-56+ areas in different groups.
Fig. 5Immunofluorescence evaluation of NSCs and its differentiation in vitro. (A) Fluorescence images of NSCs differentiation in different hydrogels into Tuj-1+ and GFAP+ cells on day 7. (B, C) Fluorescence quantitative analysis of Tuj-1 and GFAP. (D and E) mRNA expression analysis of Tuj-1 and GFAP. (F) Fluorescence images of NSCs differentiation in different hydrogels into MAP-2+ cells on day 7. (G) Fluorescence quantitative analysis of MAP-2. (H) mRNA expression analysis of MAP-2.
Fig. 6Immunofluorescence evaluation of NSCs and its differentiation in vivo. (A) Representative images of Nestin and GFAP immunostaining of spinal sections in SCI, AG and AGP3 groups at 2 weeks post-surgery. (B) Representative images of GFAP and Tuj-1 immunostaining of tissue samples at 6 weeks after SCI. (C) Images of GFAP and MAP-2 immunostaining of spinal sections in different groups at 6 weeks after injury. (D) Quantification of relative intensities of Nestin+ cells in the lesion site. (E) Quantification of regenerated Tuj-1+ neurons in different groups. (F) Quantification of relative intensities of MAP-2+ neurons. (G) Representative images of EdU and Tuj-1 immunostaining of tissue samples. (H) Representative confocal Z-stack images showing EdU and Tuj-1 colocalization in the AGP3 group. (I) Representative images of EdU and NeuN immunostaining of spinal sections in different groups. (J) Representative confocal Z-stack images showing EdU and NeuN colocalization in the AGP3 group. (K) Quantification of relative intensities of EdU+ neuron.
Fig. 7Assessment of axonal regeneration, axonal remyelination, and synapse formation. (A) Representative images of GAP-43 and GFAP immunostaining of spinal sections in each group at 6 weeks post-surgery. (B) 3D representation of a confocal image of a section in the AGP3 group. (C) Quantification of GAP-43+ area at the lesion site. (D) Representative images by double staining with NF/MBP in different groups. (E) Ultrastructural images of the regenerated tissues in the cross sections of the lesion site were assessed by TEM. (F) LFB staining images of spinal sections in each group at 6 weeks postinjury. (G) Quantification of myelinated NF+ axons in the lesion site. (H) and (I) show the numbers of the myelinated axons and thickness of the myelin sheets, respectively. (J) Quantification of LFB+ area from F in the lesion area. (K) Representative images by double staining with NF/Syn in each group. (L) Quantification of SYN+ axons at the SCI sites.
Fig. 8Investigations of RNA-seq and assessments of intracellular calcium involved in neurogenesis. (A) Heat map of neurogenesis-related gene expression. (B) The gene enrichment KEGG pathway analysis. (C, D) Immunofluorescence images of L-VGCC, p-CREB and BDNF in each group on day 7. (E) WB analysis of L-VGCC, p-CREB and BDNF. (F) Quantitative analysis of L-VGCC, p-CREB and BDNF. (G) Pseudo-color pictures of representative calcium images before and after glutamate stimulation. (H) Image-derived fluo-4 intensity measurements over time in NSCs.
Fig. 9Assessments of intracellular calcium of NSCs treated with antagonist. (A, B) Immunofluorescence images of L-VGCC, p-CREB and BDNF in each group on day 7. (C) WB analysis of L-VGCC, p-CREB and BDNF. (D) Quantitative analysis of L-VGCC, p-CREB and BDNF. (E) Representative pseudo-color images in nifedipine-treated cells before and after glutamate stimulation. (F) Image-derived fluo-4 intensity measurements over time in nifedipine-treated NSCs. (G) Schematic diagram showing the possible signal transduction pathways of the promoted neurogenesis.
Fig. 10In vivo functional and histological assessment. (A) Representative images of spinal sections from H&E staining in each group at 6 weeks postinjury. (B) General anatomical analysis of whole spinal cords. (C) Quantification analysis of the lesion site of spinal sections from H&E staining. (D) Photos of forelimb (red) and hindlimb (blue) footprints in each group at 6 weeks postinjury (yellow arrow pointed the posterior limb prints). (E) The BBB scores of the different groups at different time points. (F) The behavior assay of IPT scores at 6 weeks postinjury. (G) Immunofluorescence images by double staining with GFAP/5-HT in each group. (H) Quantification of 5-HT+ axons at the SCI sites.