| Literature DB >> 35423177 |
Abstract
Cells, scaffolds and growth factors are three elements of tissue engineering. The success of tissue engineering methods relies on precise and dynamic interactions between cells, scaffolds and growth factors. Aliphatic polyester scaffolds are promising tissue engineering scaffolds that possess good mechanical properties, low immunogenicity, non-toxicity, and adjustable degradation rates. How growth factors can be loaded onto/into aliphatic polyester scaffolds and be constantly released with the required bioactivity to regulate cell growth and promote defect tissue repair and regeneration has become the main concern of tissue engineering researchers. In this review, the existing main methods of loading growth factors on aliphatic polyester scaffolds, the release behavior of loaded growth factors and their positive effects on cell, tissue repair and regeneration are introduced. Advantages and shortcomings of each method also are mentioned. It is still a great challenge to control the release of loaded growth factors at a certain time and at a concentration simulating the biological environment of native tissue. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35423177 PMCID: PMC8694921 DOI: 10.1039/d0ra10232f
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Fig. 1Schemes of growth factor loading on aliphatic polyester scaffolds by directly blending (a) or soaking (b) method and releasing loaded growth factor.
Fig. 2Scheme of growth factor loading on aliphatic polyester scaffolds by surface coating combined with covalent binding method and releasing loaded growth factor.
Fig. 3Scheme of growth factor loading on aliphatic polyester scaffolds by micro-nano particle embedding method and releasing loaded growth factor.
Fig. 4Scheme of growth factor loading on aliphatic polyester scaffolds by plasma treatment combined with growth factor anchoring method and releasing loaded growth factor (a), morphology of MOIP-PLGA scaffold (b), bFGF binding on the plasma-treated MOIP-PLGA scaffold (c) and release profile of binding bFGF (d).[78]
Fig. 5Scheme of growth factor loading on aliphatic polyester scaffolds by H-PLGA and releasing loaded growth factor (a and b), H-PLGA/PLGA scaffolds before and after toluidine blue staining (c), bFGF binding on H-PLGA/PLGA scaffolds (d) and release of binding bFGF (e).[89]
Fig. 6Schematic illustration of preparation (a) and morphology (b and c) of the MNP-TGF/bFGF-PLGA scaffold and cumulative releases of TGF-β1 (d) and bFGF (e) from the MNP-TGF/bFGF-PLGA scaffold.[93]
Release behavior and biological activity of growth factors loaded on different aliphatic polyester scaffolds by various methods
| Scaffold | Loading method | Growth factor | Loading efficiency/capacity |
| Biological activity assay | Application areas | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cell test | Animal test | ||||||
| PCL/PLGA6535/PLGA 8515 multilayered fibrous scaffold[ | Directly blending | NT-3 | — | Release of PLGA 6535 and PLGA 8515 reached a plateau after six weeks and eight weeks, respectively | — | Rat | Neural tissue regeneration |
| BDNF | |||||||
| PDGF | |||||||
| PLGA nanofiber scaffolds[ | Directly blending | bFGF | 54% | 7 days (Group I), 14 days (Group II) | BMSCs | — | Bone regeneration |
| PLLA nanofiber scaffolds[ | Directly blending | BMP-2 | 174 ng/implant | — | — | Rat | Bone regeneration |
| Bilayer scaffolds consisting of different PLGA nanofibers[ | Directly blending | VEGF | 57.27% of VEGF | Release of VEGF from the PLGA 50/50 layer was faster than that of PDGF from the PLGA 75/25 layer | HUVEC | — | Complex tissue engineering |
| PDGF | 51.76 %of PDGF | ||||||
| Multi-layered PLLA nanosheets[ | Directly dropping onto the middle of the PLLA nanosheet | rhFGF-2 | — | — | — | Mouse | Bone regeneration |
| PLGA porous scaffold[ | Directly soaking | bFGF | 22.6% | A high initial burst and reached a standstill about 10 days | 3T3 fibroblasts | Mouse | — |
| PLLA nanofibrous scaffold[ | Directly blending (NGF) and soaking (VEGF) | NGF | — | Release rate of VEGF is higher (35.72 ± 0.29%) within 1 day than that of NGF (4.86 ± 1.00%). Release of VEGF reach a standstill (58.56 ± 1.31%) at the fourth day, but that of NGF reach a standstill (29.52 ± 0.91%) at the eleventh day | iPSCs-NCSCs | Rat | Peripheral nerve regeneration |
| VEGF | |||||||
| PLLA nanofibrous scaffold[ | Surface collagen coating combined with covalent binding | TGF-β3 | — | — | hBMSCs | — | Cartilage repair |
| PLGA/HA porous scaffolds[ | PDA-mediated method | BMP-2 | 80% of IGF-1, 75% of BMP-2 | After a burst release, the release subsequently slowed down with approximately 27% (IGF-1) and 39% (BMP-2) of the total growth factors released after 21 d | MC3T3-E1 | Rabbit | Bone tissue engineering |
| IGF-1 | |||||||
| 3D-printed PLA scaffolds with interconnected microporous architectures[ | PDA-mediated method | BMP-2 | 375.4 ng/scaffold | Sustained released of BMP-2 for up to 35 days | hMSCs | — | Bone tissue engineering |
| Tubular PCL scaffolds[ | PDA-mediated method | VEGF | 56.6 ng/scaffold | — | SMC EC | Rat | Vascular tissue engineering |
| PLLA nanofibrous scaffold[ | Nanoparticle embedding | bFGF | 48.71% | No burst release and a control release of nearly 30 days | C3H10T½ (C3) cells | Rat | Promotion of tendon healing |
| PLGA nanofibrous scaffold[ | Microspheres embedding | VEGF | 44.39% | Release last 20 days | HUVEC | Rat | Abdominal wall repair |
| PLLA nano-fibrous scaffolds[ | PLGA microspheres with PDGF-BB or rhBMP-7 post-seeding | PDGF-BB rhBMP-7 | 77–93% | Temporally controlled fashion with prolonged duration and varying temporal patterns because of different PLGA nanosphere | Human gingival fibroblast | Rat | Complex tissue regeneration |
| PLGA films and porous scaffolds[ | Plasma treatment combined with growth factor anchorage | bFGF | 66.3% | Continuous release about 7 days after a moderate burst release | 3T3 fibroblasts | — | Extensive tissue engineering |
| 3D microtubule-orientated PLGA scaffold[ | Plasma treatment combined with growth factor anchorage | bFGF | 75.0% | Continuous release for 10 days after a moderate burst release | vSMC | — | Vascular tissue engineering |
| PLGA/PLLA microfiber scaffolds[ | Heparin-mediated method | TGF-β1 | 26.8 ng/scaffold | Continuous release for 4 weeks after a moderate initial burst release | UCB-MSCs | Rabbit | Cartilage tissue engineering |
| H-PLGA/PLGA(70/30) porous scaffolds[ | Heparin-mediated method | bFGF | 71.3% | Slowly release and last over two weeks | 3T3 fibroblasts | — | Extensive tissue engineering |
| PLLA nanofiber microspheres[ | Heparin binding combined with nanospheres encapsulating | VEGF | — | Average burst release of VEGF on the first day was 20.5%, 54.7% was released within 1 week | HUVEC | Nude mouse | Pulp regeneration |
| Release of VEGF consistently at a rate of approximately 1–2% per day for the last 3 weeks | |||||||
| PLGA porous scaffold[ | Heparin binding combined with nanospheres encapsulating | BMP-7 | 79% of TGF-β3 | No burst and sustained release in a near zero-order kinetics for least 27 days | hMSCs | — | Cartilage regeneration |
| TGF-β3 | 50% of BMP-7 | ||||||
| PLGA scaffold with parallel arranged microgrooves and nanofiber structures[ | Nanoparticle binding (TGF-β1) | TGF-β1 | — | Continuous release for about 10 days of TGF-β1 | vSMC | — | Vascular tissue engineering |
| Plasma treatment combined with anchorage (bFGF) | bFGF | Moderate burst release for bFGF and then about 7 days continuous release | |||||