Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T08:09:33.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterizing the mechanical properties of tropoelastin protein scaffolds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2013

Audrey C. Ford ,
Hans Machula ,
Robert S. Kellar  and
Brent A. Nelson
Audrey C. Ford
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Department of Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011 Department of Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011
Hans Machula
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011
Robert S. Kellar
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Department of Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011 Department of Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011
Brent A. Nelson
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Department of Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011
Get access

Abstract

This paper reports on mechanical characterization of electrospun tissue scaffolds formed from varying blends of collagen and human tropoelastin. The electrospun tropoelastin-based scaffolds have an open, porous structure conducive to cell attachment and have been shown to exhibit strong biocompatibility, but the mechanical character is not well known. Mechanical properties were tested for scaffolds consisting of 100% tropoelastin and 1:1 tropoelastin-collagen blends. The results showed that the materials exhibited a three order of magnitude change in the initial elastic modulus when tested dry vs. hydrated, with moduli of 21 MPa and 0.011 MPa respectively. Noncrosslinked and crosslinked tropoelastin scaffolds exhibited the same initial stiffness from 0 to 50% strain, and the noncrosslinked scaffolds exhibited no stiffness at strains >∼50%. The elastic modulus of a 1:1 tropoelastin-collagen blend was 50% higher than that of a pure tropoelastin scaffold. Finally, the 1:1 tropoelastin-collagen blend was five times stiffer from 0 to 50% strain when strained at five times the ASTM standard rate. By systematically varying protein composition and crosslinking, the results demonstrate how protein scaffolds might be manipulated as customized biomaterials, ensuring mechanical robustness and potentially improving biocompatibility through minimization of compliance mismatch with the surrounding tissue environment. Moreover, the demonstration of strain-rate dependent mechanical behavior has implications for mechanical design of tropoelastin-based tissue scaffolds.

Keywords

biomaterialelastic propertiesviscoelasticity
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1569: Symposium NN – Advanced Materials for Biological and Biomedical Applications , 2013 , pp. 45 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2013 

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

REFERENCES

Chen, P., McKittrick, J., and Meyers, M.A., Prog. in Mat. Sci. 57, 1492–1704 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhat, S.V., Biomaterials, 2 nd ed. (Alpha Science International Ltd. Harrow, 2007) p. 1.Google Scholar
von Recum, A.F., Handbook of Biomaterials Evaluation, 2 nd ed. (Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor, 1999) p. 1.Google Scholar
Barnes, C.P., Sell, S.A., Boland, E.D., Simpson, D.G., and Bowlin, G.L.. Adv. Drug Del. Rev. 59, 1413–1433 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollister, S.J., Maddox, R.D., and Taboas, J.M.. Biomat. 23, 4095–4103 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, J.J., and Desai, T.A., An. of Biomed. Engin. 34, 89–101 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, K.A., Hinds, M.T., Sarao, R.C., Wu, P.C., Maslen, C.L., Glanville, R.W., Gregory, D. B., and Gregory, K.W.. Acta Biomat. 8, 225–233 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rnjak-Kovacina, J., Wise, S.G., Li, Z., Maitz, P.K.M., Young, C.J., Wang, Y., and Weiss, A.S., Acta Biomat. 8, 3714–3722 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, M., Mondrinos, M.J., Gandhi, M.R., Ko, F.K., Weiss, A.S., Lelkes, P.I., Biomat. 26, 5999–6008 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S.J., Yoo, J.J., Lim, G.L., Atala, A., and Stitzel, J.. J. Biomed. Mat. Res. A. 10, 999–1008 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X., Thomas, V., Vohra, Y.K., J. of Mat. Sci. 21, 541–549 (2009).Google Scholar
Wise, S.G., Byrom, M.J., Waterhouse, A., Bannon, P.G., Ng, M.K.C., and Weiss, A.S., Acta Biomat. 7.1, 295-303 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, J.A., Wnek, G.E., Simpson, D.G., and Bowlin, G.L., Biomacro. 3, 232–238 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daamen, W.F., Veerkamp, J.H., van Hest, J.C.M., and van Kuppevelt, T.H., Biomat. 28, 4378–4398 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodhouse, K.A., Klement, P., Chen, V., Gorbet, M.B., Keeley, F.W., Stahl, R., et al. . Biomat. 25, 4543–4553 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellingham, C.M., Lillie, M.A., Gosline, J.M., Wright, G.M., Starcher, B.C., Bailey, A.J., Woodhouse, K.A., and Keeley, F.W., Biopol. 70.4, 445-55 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goh, Y.F., Shakir, I., Hussain, R., J. of Mat. Sci. 48, 3027–3054 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabrana, F., Lorusso, M., Canale, C., Bochicchio, B., Vassalli, M., J. of Biomech. 44, 2118–2122 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buttafoco, L., Kolkman, N.G., Engbers-Buijtenhuijs, P., Poot, A.A., Kijkstra, P.J., Vermes, I., and Feijen, J., Biomat. 27, 724–734 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soliman, S., Pagliari, S., Rinaldi, A., Forte, G., Fiaccavento, R., Pagliari, F., Frenzese, O., Minieri, M., Di Nardo, P., Licoccia, S., and Traversa, E., Acta Biomat. 6, 1227–1237 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar