Perfusion decellularization of porcine esophagus: Study of two processing factors affecting the folded mucosal structure of the esophageal scaffold
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Acellular scaffolds from decellularized donor organs are showing promising clinical results in tissue and organ repair and regeneration. A successful decellularization process is determined by (a) its capability to decellularize complete organs of large animals, (b) retention of the extracellular matrix (ECM) structures and morphologies, and (c) minimal loss of ECM proteins. In this study, porcine esophagi were perfused in full thickness with 0.25% w/v sodium dodecyl sulfate at perfusion rates 0.1–0.2 ml/min for up to 5 days. Decellularized tissues were characterized for their residual DNA, histological staining for their matrix structures, immunohistochemical staining for collagen type IV and laminin, and scanning electron microscopy for structural integrity. Our results showed that full thickness esophageal tissues treated using the horizontal perfusion setup were decellularized with good structural and biochemical integrity in the ECM. Residual DNA content in decellularized tissues was found to be 36 ± 12 ng/mg of tissues (n = 6) which was significantly lower than that of native tissues (p = .00022). Our study showed that the organ must be decellularized in full thickness and perfusion pressure must be controlled to minimize radial expansion. These factors were found to be critical in preserving the folded mucosa in the decellularized tissues.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine · Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications · Esophageal and GI Pathology
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Nanyang Technological University Singapore Singapore
School of Applied Science Temasek Polytechnic Singapore Singapore
References (24)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.3322/caac.2149210.3322/caac.21492 ↗
2. 10.1089/ten.teb.2015.001410.1089/ten.teb.2015.0014 ↗
3. 10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2014.04.00310.1053/j.sempedsurg.2014.04.003 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.03.00510.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.03.005 ↗
5. 10.1007/978-981-13-0445-3_1910.1007/978-981-13-0445-3_19 ↗
6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62033-410.1016/S0140-6736(13)62033-4 ↗
7. 10.3109/07388551.2015.100749510.3109/07388551.2015.1007495 ↗
8. 10.1097/01.mnh.0000447019.66970.ea10.1097/01.mnh.0000447019.66970.ea ↗
9. 10.1002/jbm.a.3579410.1002/jbm.a.35794 ↗
10. 10.1111/xen.1214110.1111/xen.12141 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.04.02410.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.04.024 ↗
12. 10.1038/nm168410.1038/nm1684 ↗
13. 10.3233/THC-2012-067210.3233/THC-2012-0672 ↗
14. 10.1007/s00383-012-3194-310.1007/s00383-012-3194-3 ↗
15. 10.1038/ncomms456210.1038/ncomms4562 ↗
16. 10.1089/ten.teb.2012.034010.1089/ten.teb.2012.0340 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.pmr.2008.06.00110.1016/j.pmr.2008.06.001 ↗
18. 10.1007/978-1-4471-3742-910.1007/978-1-4471-3742-9 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.02.02010.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.02.020 ↗
20. 10.1073/pnas.180236111510.1073/pnas.1802361115 ↗
21. 10.1021/am405980910.1021/am4059809 ↗
22. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61598-610.1016/S0140-6736(08)61598-6 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.healun.2013.10.03010.1016/j.healun.2013.10.030 ↗
24. 10.1016/B978-0-12-800102-8.00042-410.1016/B978-0-12-800102-8.00042-4 ↗