10.1186/2194-0517-2-13

Comparative studies on osteogenic potential of micro- and nanofibre scaffolds prepared by electrospinning of poly(ε-caprolactone)

HTML PDF
  • Ting-Ting Li1,
  • Katrin Ebert2,
  • Jürgen Vogel1,
  • Thomas Groth*1,
  1. Department Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, Biomedical Materials Group, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Institute of Pharmacy, Halle (Saale), 06120, DE
  2. GKSS Research Centre Geesthacht GmbH, Institute of Polymer Research, Geesthacht, 21502, DE
Cover Image

Published in Issue 2013-11-14

How to Cite

Li, T.-T., Ebert, K., Vogel, J., & Groth, T. (2013). Comparative studies on osteogenic potential of micro- and nanofibre scaffolds prepared by electrospinning of poly(ε-caprolactone). Progress in Biomaterials, 2(1 (December 2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-0517-2-13
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Abstract The biocompatibility and osteogenic potential of four fibrous scaffolds prepared by electrospinning of poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) was studied with MG-63 osteoblast cells. Two different kinds of scaffolds were obtained by adjustment of spinning conditions, which were characterized as nano- or microfibrous. In addition of one nanofibrous, scaffold was made more hydrophilic by blending PCL with Pluronics F 68. Scaffolds were characterized by scanning electron microscopy and water contact angle measurements. Morphology and growth of MG63 cells seeded on the different scaffolds were investigated by confocal laser scanning microscopy after vital staining with fluorescein diacetate and by colorimetric assays. It was found that scaffolds composed of microfibres stipulated better growth conditions for osteoblasts probably by providing a real three-dimensional culture substratum, while nanofibre scaffolds restricted cell growth predominantly to surface regions. Osteogenic activity of cells was determined by alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and o-cresolphthalein complexone assay. It was observed that osteogenic activity of cells cultured in microfibre scaffolds was significantly higher than in nanofibre scaffolds regarding ALP activity. Overall, one can conclude that nanofibre scaffold provides better conditions for initial attachment of cells but does not provide advantages in terms of scaffold colonization and support of osteogenic activity compared to scaffolds prepared from microfibres.

Keywords

  • Poly(ε-caprolactone),
  • Electrospinning,
  • Microfibres,
  • Nanofibres,
  • Osteoblasts,
  • Cell growth,
  • Osteogenic activity
HTML PDF

References

  1. Andiapann et al. (2013) Electrospun eri silk fibroin scaffold coated with hydroxyapatite for bone tissue engineering applications https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-0517-2-6
  2. Asran et al. (2010) Nanofibers from blends of polyvinyl alcohol and polyhydroxybutyrate as potential scaffold material for tissue engineering of skin (pp. 3413-3421) https://doi.org/10.1021/bm100912v
  3. Bacakova et al. (2004) Cell adhesion on artificial materials for tissue engineering 53(suppl I) (pp. S35-S45)
  4. Bancroft et al. (2002) Fluid flow increases mineralized matrix deposition in 3 D perfusion culture of marrow stromal osteoblasts in a dose dependent manner (pp. 12600-12605) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.202296599
  5. Bell and Vacanti (2000) Tissue Engineering in perspective (pp. 35-61) Academic Press
  6. Bhattarai et al. (2006) Hydrophilic nanofibrous structure of polylactide; fabrication and cell affinity (pp. 247-257) https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.30695
  7. Boudriot et al. (2006) Electrospinning approaches toward scaffold engineering - a brief overview (pp. 785-792) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1594.2006.00301.x
  8. Burg et al. (2000) Biomaterial development for bone tissue engineering (pp. 2347-2359) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00102-2
  9. Cheng et al. (1996) Expression of bone matrix proteins during dexamethasone-induced mineralization of human bone marrow stromal cells (pp. 182-193) https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4644(19960501)61:2<182::AID-JCB3>3.0.CO;2-Q
  10. Cheng et al. (1998) Human osteoblasts express a repertoire of cadherins, which are crucial from BMP-2 induced osteogenic differentiation (pp. 633-644) https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.1998.13.4.633
  11. Cruz et al. (2008) Blending polysaccharides with biodegradable polymers II: structure and biological response of chitosan/polycaprolactone blends (pp. 544-554) https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.31142
  12. Dzenis (2004) Spinning continuous fibers for nanotechnology (pp. 1917-1919) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1099074
  13. Groth et al. (2010) Chemical and physical modifications of biomaterials surfaces to control adhesion of cells (pp. 253-284) Nato Science Series Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8790-4_13
  14. Gugutkov et al. (2013) Fibrinogen nanofibers for guiding endothelial cell behavior (pp. 1065-1073) https://doi.org/10.1039/c3bm60124b
  15. Guillame-Gentil et al. (2010) Engineering the extracellular environment: strategies for building 2D and 3D cellular structures (pp. 5443-5462) https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201001747
  16. Hutmacher (2000) Scaffolds in tissue engineering of bone and cartilage (pp. 2529-2543) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00121-6
  17. Kim et al. (2010) Fabrication and characterization of 3-dimensional nanofibre/microfiber scaffolds (pp. 1320-1327) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2010.01.025
  18. Koegler and Griffith (2004) Osteoblast response to PLGA tissue engineering scaffolds with PEO modified surface chemistries and demonstration of a patterned cell response (pp. 2819-2830) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.09.064
  19. Kweon et al. (2003) A novel degradable polycaprolactone networks for tissue engineering (pp. 801-808) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00370-8
  20. Nottelet et al. (2009) Factorial design optimization and in vivo feasibility of poly(e-caprolactone)-micro- and -nanofiber based small diameter vascular grafts (pp. 865-875) https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.32023
  21. Owen et al. (1990) Progressive development of the rat osteoblast phenotype in vitro: reciprocal relationships in expression of genes associated with osteoblast proliferation and differentiation during formation of the bone extracellular matrix (pp. 420-430) https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.1041430304
  22. Pham et al. (2006) Electrospun poly(ε-caprolactone) microfiber and multilayer nanofibre/microfiber scaffolds: Characterization of scaffolds and measurements of cellular infiltration (pp. 2796-2805) https://doi.org/10.1021/bm060680j
  23. Spasova et al. (2007) Preparation of PLLA/PEG nanofibers by electrospinning and potential applications (pp. 62-76) https://doi.org/10.1177/0883911506073570
  24. Szentivanyi et al. (2011) A review of developments in electrospinning technology: new opportunities for the design of artificial tissue structures (pp. 986-997) https://doi.org/10.5301/ijao.5000062
  25. Tuzlakoglu et al. (2005) Nano and microfiber combined scaffolds: a new architecture for bone tissue engineering (pp. 1099-1104) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-005-4713-8
  26. Van der Dolder et al. (2002) Bone formation by rat bone marrow cells cultured on titanium fiber mesh: effect of culture time (pp. 350-358) https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.10189
  27. Venugopal et al. (2006) In vitro culture of human dermal fibroblasts on electrospun polycaprolactone collagen nanofibrous membrane (pp. 440-446) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1594.2006.00239.x
  28. Yoshimatoa et al. (2003) A biodegradable nanofiber scaffold by electrospinning and its potential for bone tissue engineering (pp. 2077-2082) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00635-X
  29. Zhang and Zhang (2004) Cell growth and function on calcium reinforced chitosan scaffolds (pp. 255-260) https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JMSM.0000015485.94665.25