journal article·2014-04

Comparison of cell‐loading methods in hydrogel systems

Jinling Ma, Fang Yang, Sanne K. Both, Monique Kersten‐Niessen, Matilde Bongio, Juli Pan, Fu‐Zhai Cui, F. Kurtis Kasper, Antonios G. Mikos, John A. Jansen, Jeroen J. J. P. van den Beucken

Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract Bone regenerative medicine, based on the combined use of cells and scaffolds, represents a promising strategy in bone regeneration. Hydrogels have attracted huge interests for application as a scaffold for minimally invasive surgery. Collagen and oligo(poly(ethylene glycol)fumarate) (OPF) hydrogels are the representatives of two main categories of hydrogels, that is, natural‐ and synthetic‐based hydrogels. With these the optimal cell‐loading (i.e., cell distribution inside the hydrogels) method was assessed. The cell behavior of both bone marrow‐ and adipose tissue‐derived mesenchymal stem cells (BM‐ and AT‐MSCs) in three loading methods, which are dispersed (i.e., homogeneous cell encapsulation, D), sandwich (i.e., cells located in between two hydrogel layers, S), and spheroid (i.e., cell pellets encapsulation, Sp) loading in two hydrogel systems (i.e., collagen and OPF), was compared. The results suggested that the cell behavior was influenced by the hydrogel type, meaning cells cultured in collagen hydrogels had higher proliferation and osteogenic differentiation capacity than in OPF hydrogels. In addition, AT‐MSCs exhibited higher proliferation and osteogenic properties compared to BM‐MSCs. However, no difference was observed for mineralization among the three loading methods, which did not approve the hypothesis that S and Sp loading would increase osteogenic capacity compared to D loading. In conclusion, D and Sp loading represents two promising cell loading methods for injectable bone substitute materials that allow application of minimally invasive surgery for cell‐based regenerative treatment. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 102A: 935–946, 2014.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · 3D Printing in Biomedical Research · Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Biomaterials Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center Nijmegen The Netherlands

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Beijing Stomatological Hospital, Capital Medical University Beijing 100050 China

Department of Materials Science & Engineering State Key Laboratory of New Ceramics & Fine Processing, Tsinghua University Beijing 100084 China

Department of Bioengineering Rice University Houston Texas

Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Rice University Houston Texas

Funding

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) · National 973 project of China

References (43)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1038/7944910.1038/79449 ↗
2. 10.1002/term.2010.1002/term.20 ↗
3. 10.1002/adhm.20120029310.1002/adhm.201200293 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.10.01510.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.10.015 ↗
5. Review: Development of clinically relevant scaffolds for vascularised bone tissue engineering
6. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2012.07.00510.1016/j.tibtech.2012.07.005 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.02.00310.1016/j.jconrel.2011.02.003 ↗
8. 10.1002/wsbm.117410.1002/wsbm.1174 ↗
9. 10.1016/S0169-409X(01)00239-310.1016/S0169-409X(01)00239-3 ↗
10. 10.1002/bit.2236110.1002/bit.22361 ↗
11. 10.1002/jbm.a.2007310.1002/jbm.a.20073 ↗
12. 10.1021/bm030067p10.1021/bm030067p ↗
13. Implants of type I collagen gel containing MG‐63 osteoblast‐like cells can act as stable scaffolds stimulating the bone healing process at the sites of the surgically‐produced segmental diaphyseal defects in male rabbits
14. 10.1080/1465324080224208410.1080/14653240802242084 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.01.04810.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.01.048 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.07.04110.1016/j.actbio.2009.07.041 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.12.00610.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.12.006 ↗
18. 10.22203/eCM.v023a3010.22203/eCM.v023a30 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.actbio.2010.12.02710.1016/j.actbio.2010.12.027 ↗
20. 10.1007/978-1-60761-984-0_1110.1007/978-1-60761-984-0_11 ↗
21. 10.22203/eCM.v023a1110.22203/eCM.v023a11 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.03.03410.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.03.034 ↗
23. 10.1007/s10561-005-1911-z10.1007/s10561-005-1911-z ↗
24. 10.1586/erd.11.2710.1586/erd.11.27 ↗
25. 10.1089/scd.2012.038410.1089/scd.2012.0384 ↗
26. Osteogenic capacity of human BM‐MSCs, AT‐MSCs and their co‐cultures using HUVECs in FBS and PL supplemented media
27. 10.1038/nprot.2012.05510.1038/nprot.2012.055 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.11.04910.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.11.049 ↗
29. 10.1089/ten.tec.2010.021510.1089/ten.tec.2010.0215 ↗
30. 10.1039/c0an00060d10.1039/c0an00060d ↗
31. 10.1089/ten.tea.2010.019010.1089/ten.tea.2010.0190 ↗
32. 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2008.00575.x10.1111/j.1525-1594.2008.00575.x ↗
33. 10.22203/eCM.v022a2710.22203/eCM.v022a27 ↗
34. 10.1007/s00223001004110.1007/s002230010041 ↗
35. 10.1002/jbm.a.3006410.1002/jbm.a.30064 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.09.07310.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.09.073 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.04410.1016/j.cell.2006.06.044 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.07.04610.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.07.046 ↗
39. 10.1016/S1534-5807(04)00075-910.1016/S1534-5807(04)00075-9 ↗
40. 10.1126/science.114017110.1126/science.1140171 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.05.01010.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.05.010 ↗
42. 10.1021/bm701112w10.1021/bm701112w ↗
43. 10.1007/s00441-011-1215-510.1007/s00441-011-1215-5 ↗