Display options
Cite
Silva MA, Leite YKC, de Carvalho CES, et al. Behavior and biocompatibility of rabbit bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells with bacterial cellulose membrane. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4656doi: 10.7717/peerj.4656.
Silva, M. A., Leite, Y. K. C., de Carvalho, C. E. S., Feitosa, M. L. T., Alves, M. M. M., Carvalho, F. A. A., Neto, B. C. V., Miglino, M. A., Jozala, A. F., & de Carvalho, M. A. M. (2018). Behavior and biocompatibility of rabbit bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells with bacterial cellulose membrane. PeerJ, 6e4656. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4656
Silva, Marcello de Alencar, et al. "Behavior and biocompatibility of rabbit bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells with bacterial cellulose membrane." PeerJ vol. 6 (2018): e4656. doi: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4656
Silva MA, Leite YKC, de Carvalho CES, Feitosa MLT, Alves MMM, Carvalho FAA, Neto BCV, Miglino MA, Jozala AF, de Carvalho MAM. Behavior and biocompatibility of rabbit bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells with bacterial cellulose membrane. PeerJ. 2018 Apr 30;6:e4656. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4656. eCollection 2018. PMID: 29736332; PMCID: PMC5933324.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

PeerJ. 2018 Apr 30;6:e4656. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4656. eCollection 2018.

Behavior and biocompatibility of rabbit bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells with bacterial cellulose membrane.

PeerJ

Marcello de Alencar Silva, Yulla Klinger de Carvalho Leite, Camila Ernanda Sousa de Carvalho, Matheus Levi Tajra Feitosa, Michel Muálem de Moraes Alves, Fernando Aécio de Amorim Carvalho, Bartolomeu Cruz Viana Neto, Maria Angélica Miglino, Angela Faustino Jozala, Maria Acelina Martins de Carvalho

Affiliations

  1. Integrated Nucleus of Morphology and Stem Cell Research, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, Piauí, Brazil.
  2. Antileishmania Activities Laboratory, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, Piauí, Brazil.
  3. Department of Physics/Advanced Microscopy Multiuser Laboratory/Laboratory of Physics Material, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, Piauí, Brazil.
  4. Departament of Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  5. Laboratory of Industrial Microbiology and Fermentation Process, University of Sorocaba, Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil.

PMID: 29736332 PMCID: PMC5933324 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4656

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tissue engineering has been shown to exhibit great potential for the creation of biomaterials capable of developing into functional tissues. Cellular expansion and integration depends on the quality and surface-determinant factors of the scaffold, which are required for successful biological implants. The objective of this research was to characterize and evaluate the

METHODS: Samples of rabbit bone marrow were collected. Mesenchymal stem cells were isolated from medullary aspirates to establish fibroblast colony-forming unit assay. Osteogenic, chondrogenic, and adipogenic differentiation was performed. Integration with the BCM was assessed by scanning electron microscopy at 1, 7, and 14 days. Cytotoxicity was assessed via the production of nitric oxide, and BCM toxicity was assessed with the MTT assay; phagocytic activity was also determined.

RESULTS: The fibroblastoid colony-forming unit (CFU-F) assay showed cells with a fibroblastoid morphology organized into colonies, and distributed across the culture area surface. In the growth curve, two distinct phases, lag and log phase, were observed at 15 days. Multipotentiality of the cells was evident after induction of osteogenic, chondrogenic, and adipogenic lineages. Regarding the BM-MSCs' bioelectrical integration with the BCM, BM-MSCs were anchored in the BCM in the first 24 h. On day 7 of culture, the cytoplasm was scattered, and on day 14, the cells were fully integrated with the biomaterial. We also observed significant macrophage activation; analysis of the MTT assay and the concentration of nitric oxide revealed no cytotoxicity of the biomaterial.

CONCLUSION: The BCM allowed the expansion and biointegration of bone marrow progenitor cells with a stable cytotoxic profile, thus presenting itself as a biomaterial with potential for tissue engineering.

Keywords: Biocompatible materials; Cellulose; Culture techniques; Stem cells; Tissue engineering

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

References

  1. Rev Bras Ortop. 2016 Oct 15;51(6):707-715 - PubMed
  2. Burns Trauma. 2013 Jun 18;1(1):13-20 - PubMed
  3. Acta Biomater. 2014 Jun;10(6):2718-26 - PubMed
  4. PLoS One. 2017 Apr 3;12 (4):e0174789 - PubMed
  5. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2017 Mar;28(3):37 - PubMed
  6. Carbohydr Polym. 2015 Sep 5;128:41-51 - PubMed
  7. Stem Cells. 2017 Jun;35(6):1636-1646 - PubMed
  8. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015 Feb;99(3):1181-90 - PubMed
  9. Br J Haematol. 2003 Nov;123(4):702-11 - PubMed
  10. Carbohydr Polym. 2014 Dec 19;114:238-45 - PubMed
  11. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2013 Jun;34(6):747-54 - PubMed
  12. Biomed Rep. 2015 Sep;3(5):617-620 - PubMed
  13. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2015 Dec 22;6:258 - PubMed
  14. Methods. 2016 Apr 15;99:62-8 - PubMed
  15. J Pediatr Surg. 2016 Jan;51(1):8-12 - PubMed
  16. Materials (Basel). 2016 Apr 07;9(4):null - PubMed
  17. Am J Vet Res. 2012 Aug;73(8):1305-17 - PubMed
  18. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012 Dec;96(6):1479-87 - PubMed
  19. J Hematol Oncol. 2012 Apr 30;5:19 - PubMed
  20. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2016 Apr;27(4):77 - PubMed
  21. PLoS One. 2014 Feb 18;9(2):e88794 - PubMed
  22. Carbohydr Polym. 2013 Apr 15;94(1):603-11 - PubMed
  23. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim. 2014 Mar;50(3):251-60 - PubMed
  24. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2013 Feb 16;6(1):25 - PubMed
  25. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2016 Aug;27(8):129 - PubMed
  26. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2015 Nov 1;457:180-7 - PubMed
  27. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther. 2011 Dec;6(4):297-316 - PubMed
  28. Cytotechnology. 2015 Oct;67(5):793-807 - PubMed
  29. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2015 Apr;84:107-22 - PubMed
  30. Tissue Eng Part A. 2016 Mar;22(5-6):556-67 - PubMed
  31. Carbohydr Polym. 2015;127:110-5 - PubMed
  32. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015 Mar;99(6):2491-511 - PubMed
  33. Carbohydr Polym. 2013 Feb 15;92(2):1432-42 - PubMed
  34. Carbohydr Polym. 2015 Nov 5;132:146-55 - PubMed
  35. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016 Aug;61:431-443 - PubMed
  36. J Agric Food Chem. 2016 Jun 29;64(25):5260-6 - PubMed
  37. J Tissue Eng. 2016 Feb 01;7:2041731415624667 - PubMed
  38. Rev Bras Ortop. 2016 Dec 06;52(1):2-10 - PubMed
  39. EMBO J. 2015 May 5;34(9):1164-79 - PubMed
  40. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016 Feb;59:303-309 - PubMed
  41. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2015 Apr;84:172-87 - PubMed
  42. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:951512 - PubMed
  43. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2017 Oct 1;79:821-830 - PubMed
  44. Biores Open Access. 2016 Jan 01;5(1):6-14 - PubMed
  45. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014 Sep;98(17):7423-35 - PubMed
  46. Cell Transplant. 2016;25(5):829-48 - PubMed
  47. Front Immunol. 2013 Sep 04;4:201 - PubMed
  48. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2017;2017:3126458 - PubMed
  49. Nanomedicine (Lond). 2016 May;11(9):1055-72 - PubMed
  50. Oper Dent. 2015 Nov-Dec;40(6):644-52 - PubMed
  51. Regen Biomater. 2016 Mar;3(1):1-11 - PubMed

Publication Types