| Literature DB >> 35415280 |
Yu-Ting Song1, Yan-Qing Li1, Mao-Xuan Tian1,2, Jun-Gen Hu1, Xiu-Ru Zhang1,3, Peng-Cheng Liu1,4, Xiu-Zhen Zhang1, Qing-Yi Zhang1, Li Zhou5, Long-Mei Zhao1, Jesse Li-Ling1,6, Hui-Qi Xie1.
Abstract
The need for bladder reconstruction and side effects of cystoplasty have spawned the demand for the development of alternative material substitutes. Biomaterials such as submucosa of small intestine (SIS) have been widely used as patches for bladder repair, but the outcomes are not fully satisfactory. To capture stem cells in situ has been considered as a promising strategy to speed up the process of re-cellularization and functionalization. In this study, we have developed an anti-CD29 antibody-conjugated SIS scaffold (AC-SIS) which is capable of specifically capturing urine-derived stem cells (USCs) in situ for tissue repair and regeneration. The scaffold has exhibited effective capture capacity and sound biocompatibility. In vivo experiment proved that the AC-SIS scaffold could promote rapid endothelium healing and smooth muscle regeneration. The endogenous stem cell capturing scaffolds has thereby provided a new revenue for developing effective and safer bladder patches.Entities:
Keywords: Antibody-conjugated; Bladder tissue engineering; Regenerative medicine; Scaffold; Stem cell capture
Year: 2021 PMID: 35415280 PMCID: PMC8978277 DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.11.017
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioact Mater ISSN: 2452-199X
Fig. 1Schematic representation of chemical crosslinking of antibody with the SIS.
Fig. 2Schematic representation of AC-SIS specifically capture of USCs.
Fig. 3Determination of the cross-linking condition and analysis of the structure and mechanical properties of the AC-SIS. (A) Measurement of sulfhydryl graft absorbance of the SIS with various concentrations of Traut's Reagent. *P < 0.05. (B) Measurement of remaining sulfhydryl absorbance after cross-linking with various concentrations of CD29 antibody. (C) Cell proliferation with 10 μg/mL of CD29 antibody as detected with a Cell Titer 96 kit. (D) Measurement of antibody graft rate with an anti-mouse IgG- ELISA kit. (E) Immunohistochemical observation of the SIS and AC-SIS. Scale bar = 50 μm. (F) Gross observation of the SIS and AC-SIS. (G) Characterization of the mechanical properties of the SIS and AC-SIS. *P < 0.05. (H) Representative SEM image of the surface of the SIS and AC-SIS. Scale bar = 20 μm. (I) Measurement of water contact angle of the SIS and AC-SIS. (J) Quantification of water contact angle of the SIS and AC-SIS.
Fig. 4Characterization of human USCs. (A) Morphology and proliferation of the USCs. Scale bar = 500 μm. (B) Expression of surface marker of the USCs. (C) Representative images of non-induced cells (control group) and osteogenic-induced, adipogenic-induced and chondrogenic-induced USCs. Scale bar = 200 μm. (G) Urothelial differentiation of the USCs with AE1/AE3. SV-HUC was used as positive control, with non-induced USCs showing no fluorescence signal. Scale bar = 50 μm. (H) Myogenic differentiation of the USCs with expression of α-SMA and Myosin. HUVSMC was used as positive control, with non-induced USCs showing no fluorescence signal. Scale bar = 100 μm.
Fig. 5The capability of the SIS and AC-SIS to capture the USCs in vitro (A) Ultrastructure of the USCs on the surface of the SIS and AC-SIS after 3 days of culture. Scale bar = 20 μm. (B) Photographs of the USCs captured by the SIS and AC-SIS under static condition as stained with calc-xanthocyanin. Live cells were stained with calcein AM (green). Scale bar = 200 μm. (C) Proliferation of the USCs captured by the AC-SIS as detected with a Cell Titer 96 kit. *P < 0.05. (D) Flow cytometric analysis of cell apoptosis. (E) Confocal microscopy images of CM-Dil-labeled USCs (red) captured under dynamic condition on the SIS and AC-SIS after 24 h. Scale bar = 200 μm. (F) Phalloidin staining of the cytoskeleton of the USCs captured under a dynamic condition on the SIS and AC-SIS after 6 and 48 h. FITC-phalloidin staining (green) marked the cytoskeleton and DAPI staining (blue) marked the nuclei. Scale bar = 50 μm.
Fig. 6Macroscopic observation and histological examination of the regenerated bladder. (A) Representative images of the regenerated bladder after 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks. (B) Representative images of bladder filling at week 8 in various groups. (C) Representative images of H&E staining and Masson staining of the regenerated bladder. Scale bar = 200 μm. (D) Statistical comparison of bladder size in various groups at week 8. Data were presented as mean ± S.D. (E) Comparison of Masson staining for collagen area (%) in each group at week 1. *P < 0.05. (F) Comparison of Masson staining for collagen area (%) in each group at week 2. (G) Comparison of Masson staining for collagen area (%) in each group at week 4. *P < 0.05. (H) Comparison of Masson staining for collagen area (%) in each group at week 8.
Fig. 7Immunofluorescence observation of the repaired bladder. (A) Expression of endothelium-associated markers AE1/AE3 in the control and experimental groups. The urothelium was stained with AE1/AE3 (red), while the nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue). Scale bar = 100 μm. (B) Expression of smooth muscle-specific markers α-SMA and Myosin in the control and experimental groups. Bladder and vascular smooth muscle were stained with α-SMA (red) and Myosin (green), the nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue). Scale bar = 100 μm. (C) Percentage of α-SMA positive area relative to the total area of each group as compared after 1 week. Data was presented as mean ± S.D. **P < 0.01. (D) Percentage of α-SMA positive area relative to the total area of each group as compared after 2 weeks. Data was presented as mean ± S.D. (E) Percentage of α-SMA positive area relative to the total area of each group as compared after 4 weeks. Data was presented as mean ± S.D. *P < 0.05. (F) Percentage of α-SMA positive area relative to the total area of each group as compared after 8 weeks. Data was presented as mean ± S.D. (G) Percentage of α-SMA positive area relative to the total area of each group as compared after 1 week. Data was presented as mean ± S.D. **P < 0.01. (H) Percentage of α-SMA positive area relative to the total area of each group as compared after 2 weeks. Data was presented as mean ± S.D. **P < 0.01. (I) Percentage of α-SMA positive area relative to the total area of each group as compared after 4 weeks. Data was presented as mean ± S.D. *P < 0.05. (J) Percentage of α-SMA positive area relative to the total area of each group as compared after 8 weeks. Data was presented as mean ± S.D. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01. (K) Percentage of Myosin positive area relative to the total area of each group as compared after 1 week. Data was presented as mean ± S.D. **P < 0.01. (L) Percentage of Myosin positive area relative to the total area of each group as compared after 2 weeks. Data was presented as mean ± S.D. *P < 0.05. (M) Percentage of Myosin positive area relative to the total area of each group as compared after 4 weeks. Data was presented as mean ± S.D. **P < 0.01. (N) Percentage of Myosin positive area relative to the total area of each group as compared after 8 weeks. Data was presented as mean ± S.D. *P < 0.05.