journal article·2023-11-13

Liver Extracellular Matrix-Based Nanofiber Scaffolds for the Culture of Primary Hepatocytes and Drug Screening

Ashwini Vasudevan, Nilotpal Majumder, Indu Sharma, Impreet Kaur, Subramanian Sundarrajan, Jayarama Reddy Venugopal, Pooja Vijayaraghavan, Neetu Singh, Seeram Ramakrishna, Sourabh Ghosh, Dinesh M Tripathi, Savneet Kaur

Publisher page

Abstract

Immortalized liver cell lines and primary hepatocytes are currently used as in vitro models for hepatotoxic drug screening. However, a decline in the viability and functionality of hepatocytes with time is an important limitation of these culture models. Advancements in tissue engineering techniques have allowed us to overcome this challenge by designing suitable scaffolds for maintaining viable and functional primary hepatocytes for a longer period of time in culture. In the current study, we fabricated liver-specific nanofiber scaffolds with polylactic acid (PLA) along with a decellularized liver extracellular matrix (LEM) by the electrospinning technique. The fabricated hybrid PLA-LEM scaffolds were more hydrophilic and had better swelling properties than the PLA scaffolds. The hybrid scaffolds had a pore size of 38 ± 8 μm and supported primary rat hepatocyte cultures for 10 days. Increased viability (2-fold increase in the number of live cells) and functionality (5-fold increase in albumin secretion) were observed in primary hepatocytes cultured on the PLA-LEM scaffolds as compared to those on conventional collagen-coated plates on day 10 of culture. A significant increase in CYP1A2 enzyme activity was observed in hepatocytes cultured on PLA-LEM hybrid scaffolds in comparison to those on collagen upon induction with phenobarbital. Drugs like acetaminophen and rifampicin showed the highest toxicity in hepatocytes cultured on hybrid scaffolds. Also, the lethal dose of these drugs in rodents was accurately predicted as 1.6 g/kg and 594 mg/kg, respectively, from the corresponding IC 50 values obtained from drug-treated hepatocytes on hybrid scaffolds. Thus, the fabricated liver-specific electrospun scaffolds maintained primary hepatocyte viability and functionality for an extended period in culture and served as an effective ex vivo drug screening platform to predict an accurate in vivo drug-induced hepatotoxicity.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Liver physiology and pathology · Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine · 3D Printing in Biomedical Research

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

Affiliations

Department of Molecular and Cellular Medicine, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi 110070, India

Amity Institute of Biotechnology, Sector-125, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Noida 201301, India

Department of Textile and Fibre Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India

Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117581, Singapore

Department of Prosthodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical & Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai 600077, India

Faculty of Industrial Sciences and Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Kuantan 26600, Malaysia

Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India

Funding

Indian Council of Medical Research · Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India · Indian Institute of Technology Delhi · Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences

References (58)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.taap.2012.08.01510.1016/j.taap.2012.08.015 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.fct.2012.12.06310.1016/j.fct.2012.12.063 ↗
3. 10.1172/JCI5975510.1172/JCI59755 ↗
4. 10.14218/JCTH.2014.0001410.14218/JCTH.2014.00014 ↗
5. 10.3389/fphar.2021.64708410.3389/fphar.2021.647084 ↗
6. 10.1002/hep.2413210.1002/hep.24132 ↗
7. 10.1248/bpb.b17-0091310.1248/bpb.b17-00913 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2009.11.00710.1016/j.jbiotec.2009.11.007 ↗
9. 10.1634/stemcells.2007-029110.1634/stemcells.2007-0291 ↗
10. 10.1111/j.1432-0436.2004.07205002.x10.1111/j.1432-0436.2004.07205002.x ↗
11. 10.1039/C9BM01310E10.1039/C9BM01310E ↗
12. 10.1016/j.actbio.2008.09.01310.1016/j.actbio.2008.09.013 ↗
13. 10.3390/biomimetics704014910.3390/biomimetics7040149 ↗
14. Ding Y. · 2019 · 2210.1201/9780429085765-2 ↗
15. 10.1021/nl070678d10.1021/nl070678d ↗
16. 10.2976/1.297666210.2976/1.2976662 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.mtla.2018.11.01410.1016/j.mtla.2018.11.014 ↗
18. 10.1038/s41598-019-42627-710.1038/s41598-019-42627-7 ↗
19. 10.1088/2057-1976/aacbe110.1088/2057-1976/aacbe1 ↗
20. 10.1002/jcb.2662210.1002/jcb.26622 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.msec.2020.11116010.1016/j.msec.2020.111160 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2019.02.01410.1016/j.jbiosc.2019.02.014 ↗
23. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.1c0067110.1021/acsbiomaterials.1c00671 ↗
24. 10.1021/acsabm.2c0052610.1021/acsabm.2c00526 ↗
25. 10.1093/nar/gkz84910.1093/nar/gkz849 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.engreg.2022.10.00110.1016/j.engreg.2022.10.001 ↗
27. 10.3390/ijms2216848910.3390/ijms22168489 ↗
28. 10.1089/ten.tec.2012.067110.1089/ten.tec.2012.0671 ↗
29. 10.1088/1757-899X/209/1/01209210.1088/1757-899X/209/1/012092 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.02.00910.1016/j.actbio.2018.02.009 ↗
31. 10.1038/nm.217010.1038/nm.2170 ↗
32. 10.1002/jbm.b.3511510.1002/jbm.b.35115 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.bprint.2022.e0023210.1016/j.bprint.2022.e00232 ↗
34. 10.1039/c4tb00913d10.1039/c4tb00913d ↗
35. 10.1039/C4TB01487A10.1039/C4TB01487A ↗
36. 10.1111/iep.1203010.1111/iep.12030 ↗
37. 10.1089/ten.teb.2011.023510.1089/ten.teb.2011.0235 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.msec.2016.06.04110.1016/j.msec.2016.06.041 ↗
39. Sakuma T. · Drug Metabol. Dispos. · 1999 · 27 · 379
40. 10.1002/adhm.20150089710.1002/adhm.201500897 ↗
41. 10.1177/03913988080310060510.1177/039139880803100605 ↗
42. 10.1039/c3tb20241k10.1039/c3tb20241k ↗
43. 10.1002/adhm.20220230210.1002/adhm.202202302 ↗
44. 10.1089/ten.2006.12.51910.1089/ten.2006.12.519 ↗
45. 10.1146/annurev.biochem.77.032207.12083310.1146/annurev.biochem.77.032207.120833 ↗
46. 10.1007/BF0160642510.1007/BF01606425 ↗
47. Dockery P. · 2016 · 16910.1016/B978-1-78242-087-3.00008-0 ↗
48. 10.1007/s00441-009-0896-510.1007/s00441-009-0896-5 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.polymer.2018.10.03110.1016/j.polymer.2018.10.031 ↗
50. 10.1177/02611929990270060910.1177/026119299902700609 ↗
51. 10.1016/0887-2333(94)90123-610.1016/0887-2333(94)90123-6 ↗
52. 10.1177/02611929030310020410.1177/026119290303100204 ↗
53. 10.1016/0041-008X(84)90277-110.1016/0041-008X(84)90277-1 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.taap.2012.08.01510.1016/j.taap.2012.08.015 ↗
55. 10.3390/ijms1807141710.3390/ijms18071417 ↗
56. 10.2174/138161282466618040415230410.2174/1381612824666180404152304 ↗
57. 10.1371/journal.pone.005968910.1371/journal.pone.0059689 ↗
58. 10.4172/2155-9872.1000249610.4172/2155-9872.10002496 ↗