3D Bioplotting of Gelatin/Alginate Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering: Influence of Crosslinking Degree and Pore Architecture on Physicochemical Properties

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2016.01.007

材料科学与技术 ›› 2016, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (9): 889-900.DOI: 10.1016/j.jmst.2016.01.007

收稿日期:2015-06-10 接受日期:2015-08-10 出版日期:2016-09-20 发布日期:2016-11-02

3D Bioplotting of Gelatin/Alginate Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering: Influence of Crosslinking Degree and Pore Architecture on Physicochemical Properties

Pan Ting^1,^2,³,Song Wenjing^1,^2,^3,^*(),Cao Xiaodong^1,^2,³,Wang Yingjun^1,^2,^3,^*()

¹ Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Materials Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China
² National Engineering Research Center for Tissue Restoration and Reconstruction, Guangzhou 510006, China
³ Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Biomedical Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China

Received:2015-06-10 Accepted:2015-08-10 Online:2016-09-20 Published:2016-11-02
Contact: Song Wenjing,Wang Yingjun

摘要/Abstract

Abstract:

Gelatin/Alginate hydrogels were engineered for bioplotting in tissue engineering. One major drawback of hydrogel scaffolds is the lack of adequate mechanical properties. In this study, using a bioplotter, we constructed the scaffolds with different pore architectures by deposition of gelatin/alginate hydrogels layer-by-layer. The scaffolds with different crosslinking degree were obtained by post-crosslinking methods. Their physicochemical properties, as well as cell viability, were assessed. Different crosslinking methods had little influence on scaffold architecture, porosity, pore size and distribution. By contrast, the water absorption ability, degradation rate and mechanical properties of the scaffolds were dramatically affected by treatment with various concentrations of crosslinking agent (glutaraldehyde). The crosslinking process using glutaraldehyde markedly improved the stability and mechanical strength of the hydrogel scaffolds. Besides the post-processing methods, the pore architecture can also evidently affect the mechanical properties of the scaffolds. The crosslinked gelatin/alginate scaffolds showed a good potential to encapsulate cells or drugs.

Key words: Bioplotting, Tissue engineering, Scaffolds, Gelatin, Alginate

. [J]. 材料科学与技术, 2016, 32(9): 889-900.

Pan Ting,Song Wenjing,Cao Xiaodong,Wang Yingjun. 3D Bioplotting of Gelatin/Alginate Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering: Influence of Crosslinking Degree and Pore Architecture on Physicochemical Properties[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2016, 32(9): 889-900.

图/表 11

Fig. 1. FTIR spectra of gelatin/alginate scaffolds with different crosslinking processes.

Fig. 2. Fluorescent images of wet scaffolds treated with different crosslinking processes: (a) CaCl2; (b) CaCl2+0.25% GTA; (c) CaCl2+1% GTA; (d) CaCl2+2.5% GTA; (e) CaCl2+0.25% GTA -90°.

Fig. 3. Low vacuum ESEM images of wet scaffolds of different magnifications: (a) CaCl2; (b) CaCl2+0.25% GTA; (c) CaCl2+1% GTA; (d) CaCl2+2.5% GTA; (e) CaCl2+0.25% GTA -90°.

Fig. 4. 3D rotational microscopy images of magnified surface and cross section of the dried scaffold: (a) CaCl2; (b) CaCl2+0.25% GTA; (c) CaCl2+1% GTA; (d) CaCl2+2.5% GTA; (e) CaCl2+0.25% GTA-90°. 1, 2 indicate the horizontal sections with different magnifications and 3 represents the vertical cross-sections of scaffolds.

Fig. 5. SEM images of magnified surface and cross section of the dried scaffold: (a) CaCl2; (b) CaCl2+0.25% GTA; (c) CaCl2+1% GTA; (d) CaCl2+2.5% GTA; (e) CaCl2+0.25% GTA-90°. 1, 2 indicate the horizontal sections with different magnifications and 3 represents the vertical cross-sections of scaffolds.

Fig. 6. (a) Porosity of both wet and dried scaffolds treated with different crosslinking processes, (b-f) pore size distribution of dried scaffolds. * indicated that there was significant difference (p?<?0.05).

Fig. 7. Reconstruction of 3D images of dried scaffolds by micro-CT: (a) CaCl2; (b) CaCl2+0.25% GTA; (c) CaCl2+1% GTA; (d) CaCl2+2.5% GTA; (e) CaCl2+0.25% GTA-90°.

Fig. 8. Water absorption ability of dried scaffolds.

Fig. 9. Degradation rate of hydrogel scaffolds.

Fig. 10. (a) Stress-strain curves with a compressing rate of 1?mm/min, (b) and (c) comparison of final deformation rate and Young's modulus. * indicated that there was significant difference (p?<?0.05).

Fig. 11. Fluorescent images of mBMSCs cell adhesion on scaffolds cultured for 3 days. The three parallel figures indicate three different focal planes under the same visual field.

参考文献

[1]	S. Bose, M. Roy, A. Bandyopadhyay.Trends Biotechnol, 30(2012), pp. 546-554
[2]	F.P. W.Melchels, M.A.N. Domingos, T.J. Klein, J. Malda, P.J. Bartolo, D.W. Hutmacher. Prog. Polym. Sci, 37(2012), pp. 1079-1104
[3]	T. Mygind, M. Stiehler, A. Baatrup, H. Li, X. Zoua, A. Flyvbjerg, M. Kassem, C. Bunger.Biomaterials, 28(2007), pp. 1036-1047
[4]	X. Mingen, L. Yanlei, S. Hairui, Y. Yongnian, L. Li, W. Qiujun, G. Yakun, X. Ying.Biofabrication, 2(2010) 025002
[5]	B. Derby.Science, 338(2012), pp. 921-926
[6]	S.V. Murphy, A. Atala. Nat.Biotechnol, 32(2014), pp. 773-785
[7]	A. Atala, J. Yoo. Manuf. Eng(2015), pp. 63-66
[8]	A. Skardal, A. Atala. Ann.Biomed. Eng, 43(2015), pp. 730-746
[9]	B.V. Slaughter, S.S. Khurshid, O.Z. Fisher, A. Khademhosseini, N.A. Peppas.Adv. Mater, 21(2009), pp. 3307-3329
[10]	T.T. Lau, J.R.E.Neo, D.A. Wang. Polym. Int, 63(2014), pp. 1600-1607
[11]	X. Hu, Y. Zhu, C. Gao. Prog.Chem, 21(2009), pp. 2164-2175
[12]	S.V. Murphy, A. Skardal, A. Atala. J.Biomed. Mater. Res. A, 101(2013), pp. 272-284
[13]	M. Xu, X. Wang, Y. Yan, R. Yao, Y. Ge.Biomaterials, 31(2010), pp. 3868-3877
[14]	J.Y. Park, J.C. Choi, J.H. Shim, J.S. Lee, H. Park, S.W. Kim, J. Doh, D.W. Cho.Biofabrication, 6(2014) 035004
[15]	T. Zhang, Y. Yan, X. Wang, Z. Xiong, F. Lin, R. Wu, R. Zhang. J.Bioact. Compat. Pol, 22(2007), pp. 19-29
[16]	N.E. Fedorovich, I. Swennen, J. Girones, L. Moroni, C.A. van Blitterswijk, E. Schacht, J. Alblas, W.J.A. Dhert. Biomacromolecules, 10(2009), pp. 1689-1696
[17]	F. Zhang, K. Su, Y. Fang, S. Sandhya, D.A. Wang. J. Tyear Eng.Regen. Med, 9(2015), pp. 77-84
[18]	W. Xu, X. Wang, Y. Yan, W. Zheng, Z. Xiong, F. Lin, R. Wu, R. Zhang. J.Bioact. Compat. Pol, 22(2007), pp. 363-377
[19]	W. Leong, T.T. Lau, D.A. Wang.Acta Biomater, 9(2013), pp. 6459-6467
[20]	X. Hu, D. Li, C. Gao. Biotech.J., 6(2011), pp. 1388-1396
[21]	T. Billiet, M. Vandenhaute, J. Schelfhout, S. Van Vlierberghe, P. Dubruel.Biomaterials, 33(2012), pp. 6020-6041
[22]	Y. Elsayed, C. Lekakou, P. Tomlins. Polym.Test, 40(2014), pp. 106-115
[23]	A. Bigi, G. Cojazzi, S. Panzavolta, K. Rubini, N. Roveri.Biomaterials, 22(2001), pp. 763-768
[24]	R. Landers, A. Pfister, U. Hubner, H. John, R. Schmelzeisen, R. Mulhaupt. J.Mater. Sci, 37(2002), pp. 3107-3116
[25]	C.N. Grover, J.H. Gwynne, N. Pugh, S. Hamaia, R.W. Farndale, S.M. Best, R.E. Cameron.Acta Biomater, 8(2012), pp. 3080-3090
[26]	Z.W. Ma, Z.W. Mao, C.Y. Gao.Colloids Surf. B. Biointerfaces, 60(2007), pp. 137-157
[27]	J.L. Xu, L.Z. Bao, A.H. Liu, X.F. Jin, J.M. Luo, Z.C. Zhong, Y.F. Zheng. J. Alloy.Compd, 645(2015), pp. 137-142
[28]	V. Karageorgiou, D. Kaplan.Biomaterials, 26(2005), pp. 5474-5491
[29]	L. Zeng, Y. Yao, D.A. Wang, X. Chen. Mat.Sci. Eng.C-Mater, 34(2014), pp. 168-175
[30]	H.J. Lee, S.H. Ahn, G.H. Kim.Chem. Mater, 24(2012), pp. 881-891
[31]	A. Bigi, G. Cojazzi, S. Panzavolta, N. Roveri, K. Rubini.Biomaterials, 23(2002), pp. 4827-4832
[32]	F. Ganji, S. Vasheghani-Farahani, E. Vasheghani-Farahani.Iran. Polym. J., 19(2010), pp. 375-398
[33]	H. Zhuang, Y. Han, A. Feng. Mat.Sci. Eng.C-Mater, 28(2008), pp. 1462-1466
[34]	S.J. Hollister.Nat. Mater, 4(2005), pp. 518-524
[35]	L. Moroni, J.R. de Wijn, C.A. van Blitterswijk. Biomaterials, 27(2006), pp. 974-985

3D Bioplotting of Gelatin/Alginate Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering: Influence of Crosslinking Degree and Pore Architecture on Physicochemical Properties

RichHTML

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 11

参考文献

相关文章 0

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价