Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T23:55:00.301Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marrow Stromal Cell Reponse to Fiber-Reinforced Laminated Nanocomposites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Junyu Ma ,
Weijie Xu  and
Esmaiel Jabbari
Junyu Ma
Affiliation:
ma8@engr.sc.edu, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, United States
Weijie Xu
Affiliation:
xuw@engr.sc.edu, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, United States
Esmaiel Jabbari
Affiliation:
jabbari@engr.sc.edu
Get access

Abstract

Current biomaterials as a scaffold for bone regeneration are limited by the extent of degradation concurrent with bone formation, mechanical strength, and the extent of osteogenic differentiation of marrow stromal cells migrating from the surrounding tissues. In this project, a novel laminated nanocomposite scaffold is fabricated, consisting of poly (L-lactide ethylene oxide fumarate) (PLEOF) hydrogel reinforced with poly (L-lactide acid) (PLLA) electrospun nanofibers and hydroxyapatite (HA) nanoparticles. The laminated nanocomposites were fabricated by dry-hand lay up technique followed by compression molding and thermal crosslinking. The laminated nanocomposites were evaluated with respect to mechanical strength and osteogenic differentiation of marrow stromal (BMS) cells. Laminates showed modulus values much higher than that of hydrogel or fiber. The effect of laminated nanocomposites on osteogenic differentiation of BMS cells was determined in terms of ALPase activity and calcium content. Our results demonstrate that grafting RGD peptide to a PLEOF/HA hydrogel reinforced with PLLA nanofibers synergistically enhances osteogenic differentiation of BMS cells.

Keywords

compositebiomaterialbone
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1235: Symposium RR – Engineering Biomaterials for Regenerative Medicine , 2009 , 1235-RR05-05
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Coe, F.L. and Favus, M.J., eds. Disorders of bone and mineral metabolism. 1992, Raven Press: New York. 265.Google Scholar
2 Buckwalter, J.A. and Cooper, R.R., Bone structure and function. Instr. Course Lect., 1987. 36: p. 27–48.Google Scholar
3 Weiner, S., Traub, W., and Wagner, H.D., Lamellar bone: structure-function relations. J. Struct. Biol., 1999. 126(3): p. 241–55.Google Scholar
4 Jabbari, E. and He, X., Synthesis and characterization of bioresorbable in situ crosslinkable ultra low molecular weight poly(lactide) macromer. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med., 2008. 19(1): p. 311–318.Google Scholar
5 He, X. and Jabbari, E., Material properties and cytocompatibility of injectable MMP degradable poly(lactide ethylene oxide fumarate) hydrogel as a carrier for marrow stromal cells. Biomacromolecules, 2007. 8(3): p. 780–92.Google Scholar
6 Sarvestani, A., Xu, W., He, X., and Jabbari, E., Gelation and degradation characteristics of in situ photo-crosslinked poly(L-lactid-co-ethylene oxide-co-fumarate) hydrogels. Polymer, 2007. 48(24): p. 7113–7120.Google Scholar
7 Jabbari, E., He, X., Valarmathi, M., Sarvestani, A., and Xu, W., Material properties and bone marrow stromal cells response to In situ crosslinkable RGD-functionlized lactideco-glycolide scaffolds. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A, 2008. 89A(1): p. 124–137.Google Scholar
8 Sarvestani, A.S., He, X.Z., and Jabbari, E., Viscoelastic characterization and modeling of gelation kinetics of injectable in situ cross-linkable poly(lactide-co-ethylene oxide-cofumarate) hydrogels. Biomacromolecules, 2007. 8(2): p. 406–415.Google Scholar
9 Xu, W.J., He, X.Z., Sarvestani, A.S., and Jabbari, E., Effect of a low-molecular-weight cross-linkable macromer on electrospinning of poly(lactide-co-glycolide) fibers. J. Biomat. Sci. Polym. Ed., 2007. 18(11): p. 1369–1385.Google Scholar
10 He, X.Z. and Jabbari, E., Solid-phase synthesis of reactive peptide crosslinker by selective deprotection. Prot. Pept. Lett., 2006. 13(7): p. 515–518.Google Scholar
11 Jabbari, E., He, X.Z., Valarmathi, M.T., Sarvestani, A.S., and Xu, W.J., Material properties and bone marrow stromal cells response to in situ crosslinkable RGD-functionlized lactide-co-glycolide scaffolds. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A, 2009. 89A(1): p. 124–137.Google Scholar
12 Athanasiou, K.A., Zhu, C., Lanctot, D.R., Agrawal, C.M., and Wang, X., Fundamentals of biomechanics in tissue engineering of bone. Tissue Eng., 2000. 6(4): p. 361–81.Google Scholar
13 He, X., Ma, J.Y., and Jabbari, E., Effect of Grafting RGD and BMP-2 Protein-Derived Peptides to a Hydrogel Substrate on Osteogenic Differentiation of Marrow Stromal Cells. Langmuir, 2008. 24(21): p. 12508–12516.Google Scholar
14 Hosseinkhani, H., Hosseinkhani, M., Tian, F., Kobayashi, H., and Tabata, Y., Osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells in self-assembled peptide-amphiphile nanofibers. Biomaterials, 2006. 27(22): p. 4079–4086.Google Scholar
15 Horii, A., Wang, X., Gelain, F., and Zhang, S., Biological designer self-assembling Peptide nanofiber scaffolds significantly enhance osteoblast proliferation, differentiation and 3-D migration. PLoS ONE, 2007. 2(2): p. e190.Google Scholar