| Literature DB >> 35743076 |
Isabel Verit1,2,3, Laura Gemini1, Julie Preterre2,3,4, Pierre Pfirmann2,3,4, Hugo Bakis2,3,4, Jean-Christophe Fricain2,3,5, Rainer Kling1, Claire Rigothier2,3,4.
Abstract
To face the increasing demand for organ transplantation, currently the development of tissue engineering appears as the best opportunity to effectively regenerate functional tissues and organs. However, these approaches still face the lack of an efficient method to produce an efficient vascularization system. To answer these issues, the formation of an intra-volume channel within a three-dimensional, scaffold free, mature, and cell-covered collagen microfibre is here investigated through laser-induced cavitation. An intra-volume channel was formed upon irradiation with a near-infrared, femtosecond laser beam, focused with a high numerical aperture lens. The laser beam directly crossed the surface of a dense and living-cell bilayer and was focused behind the bilayer to induce channel formation in the hydrogel core while preserving the cell bilayer. Channel formation was assessed through confocal microscopy. Channel generation inside the hydrogel core was enhanced by the formation of voluminous cavitation bubbles with a lifetime longer than 30 s, which also improved intra-volume channel durability. Twenty-four hours after laser processing, cellular viability dropped due to a lack of sufficient hydration for processing longer than 10 min. However, the processing automation could drastically reduce the cellular mortality, this way enabling the formation of hollowed microfibres with a high density of living-cell outer bilayer.Entities:
Keywords: cell-laden microfibre; femtosecond laser; tissue engineering; vascularization
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35743076 PMCID: PMC9224315 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23126636
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Figure 1(A) CCD camera images of cavitation bubbles recorded 5s after laser processing and observed inside four different microfibres processed with the same laser parameter and four different depths of focus: D = 30 μm, 50 μm, 100 μm, and 150 μm. Cavitation bubbles were imaged in the collagen hydrogel core at the processing depth. Fixed process parameters: λ = 1030 nm; F = 22.1 J/cm2; R.R. = 50 kHz; O.L. = 99.7%; two consecutive laser passes. (B) Evolution of the microfibre number (%) with respect to the type of laser-induced modifications observed 24h after laser processing for different depths of focus.
Figure 2A schematic illustration of focal point positions for different depth of focus values inside a 200 µm diameter microfibre. Red gradient cones map the laser fluence gradient before and after focalization. The further away from the focal volume, the lower the laser fluence.
Figure 3(A) One microfibre processed at four different fluence values: F = 19.6; 31.9; 34.4, and 36.8 J·cm−2, Top: microfibre core, Bottom: outer cell bilayer. Cavitation bubbles were imaged within the collagen hydrogel at the processing depth (90 µm). Fixed parameters: λ = 1030 nm; D = 90 µm; R.R. = 50 kHz; O.L. = 99.7%; 1 laser pass. White arrows indicate significant cell wall damages. (B) Evolution of the microfibres number (%) with respect to the type of laser-induced modifications observed 24h after laser processing for different fluence values. A schematic illustration of focal point positions for different depth of focus values inside a 200 µm diameter microfibre. Red gradient cones map the laser fluence gradient before and after focalization. The further away from the focal volume, the lower the laser fluence.
Figure 4Cavitation bubble behavior 5s after laser processing within different microfibres with respect to the repetition rate: 10 kHz (top) and 50 kHz (bottom) and the overlap: 96.9% (left), 98.5% (middle), and 99.7% (right). Fixed parameters: λ = 1030 nm; D = 100 µm; F = 24.5 J·cm−2; 1 laser pass.
Figure 5Evolution of cellular viability according to microfibre hydration. (A) Confocal microscope images of two microfibres (one control microfibre and one laser-processed microfibre) stored in culture medium (t0) and the same microfibres 37 and 46 min after the culture medium was removed. Only the processed microfibre received laser treatment. (B) Histogram showing the percentage of microfibres still alive after 24 h as a function of the time spent on the sample holder with only a small amount of culture medium for the group of laser-processed microfibres (orange) and the group of control microfibres (grey).
Figure 6Confocal microscope images showing laser-induced modifications in three different types of microfibres. (A) Sharp channel inside a dehydrated microfibre after spending 41 min on a sample holder. (B) Attenuation (blue circle) of signal density inside a hydrated microfibre after 9 min spent on a sample holder. After being marked with Live/Dead® ki, A and B colors were modified to highlight laser interaction effects. (C) Sharp channel inside a PFA-fixed microfibre, green: collagen-Fluorescein-5-isothiocyanate (FITC), blue: DAPI staining.
Figure 7Temporal evolution of a laser-induced cavitation bubble inside the hydrogel core of a single microfibre. Inserts indicate the time elapsed since the end of laser processing.