The support of bone marrow stromal cell differentiation by airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds

Abstract Nanofiber scaffolds are effective for tissue engineering since they emulate the fibrous nanostructure of native extracellular matrix (ECM). Although electrospinning has been the most common approach for fabricating nanofiber scaffolds, airbrushing approaches have also been advanced for maki...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Biomaterials 2013-03, Vol.34 (10), p.2389-2398
Hauptverfasser: Tutak, Wojtek, Sarkar, Sumona, Lin-Gibson, Sheng, Farooque, Tanya M, Jyotsnendu, Giri, Wang, Dongbo, Kohn, Joachim, Bolikal, Durgadas, Simon, Carl G
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2398
container_issue 10
container_start_page 2389
container_title Biomaterials
container_volume 34
creator Tutak, Wojtek
Sarkar, Sumona
Lin-Gibson, Sheng
Farooque, Tanya M
Jyotsnendu, Giri
Wang, Dongbo
Kohn, Joachim
Bolikal, Durgadas
Simon, Carl G
description Abstract Nanofiber scaffolds are effective for tissue engineering since they emulate the fibrous nanostructure of native extracellular matrix (ECM). Although electrospinning has been the most common approach for fabricating nanofiber scaffolds, airbrushing approaches have also been advanced for making nanofibers. For airbrushing, compressed gas is used to blow polymer solution through a small nozzle which shears the polymer solution into fibers. Our goals were 1) to assess the versatility of airbrushing, 2) to compare the properties of airbrushed and electrospun nanofiber scaffolds and 3) to test the ability of airbrushed nanofibers to support stem cell differentiation. The results demonstrated that airbrushing could produce nanofibers from a wide range of polymers and onto a wide range of targets. Airbrushing was safer, 10-fold faster, 100-fold less expensive to set-up and able to deposit nanofibers onto a broader range of targets than electrospinning. Airbrushing yielded nanofibers that formed loosely packed bundles of aligned nanofibers, while electrospinning produced un-aligned, single nanofibers that were tightly packed and highly entangled. Airbrushed nanofiber mats had larger pores, higher porosity and lower modulus than electrospun mats, results that were likely caused by the differences in morphology (nanofiber packing and entanglement). Airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds fabricated from 4 different polymers were each able to support osteogenic differentiation of primary human bone marrow stromal cells (hBMSCs). Finally, the differences in airbrushed versus electrospun nanofiber morphology caused differences in hBMSC shape where cells had a smaller spread area and a smaller volume on airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds. These results highlight the advantages and disadvantages of airbrushing versus electrospinning nanofiber scaffolds and demonstrate that airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds can support stem cell differentiation.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.12.020
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1669880080</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0142961212014007</els_id><sourcerecordid>1664199782</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c567t-2a6dc8f3dde1bd8aa7f97981ae542bf393e3dbc150a8b4ad166c7a49b8e3faa03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNUsuKFDEUDaI4PaO_IMGVm2rzqEfiQpBRR2HAhePCVbhJbpi01ZU2qVL6703Ro4gbBwKXwHlc7jmEPOdsyxnvX-62NqY9zJgjjGUrGBfb-phgD8iGq0E1nWbdQ7JhvBWN7rk4I-el7Fj9s1Y8JmdCSi40kxvy9eYWaVkOh5RnmgK1aUK6h5zTT1rmXG1G6nAcqY8hYMZpjjDHNFF7pBCzzUu5RU8nmFKIFjMtDkJIoy9PyKNQ18Ond_OCfHn_7ubyQ3P96erj5ZvrxnX9MDcCeu9UkN4jt14BDEEPWnHArhU2SC1Reut4x0DZFjzvezdAq61CGQCYvCAvTrqHnL4vWGazj2VdGSZMSzGVoJViTN0L2nKtByX-DxVKdHxodVuhr05Ql1MpGYM55FhPeDScmTUwszN_B2bWwKqAqYFV8rM7n8Xu0f-h_k6oAt6eAFhv-CNiNsVFnBz6mNHNxqd4P5_X_8i4MU7RwfgNj1h2acnTyuGmVIL5vFZnbQ4Xa2nYIH8BI3LEAw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1282517494</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The support of bone marrow stromal cell differentiation by airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Tutak, Wojtek ; Sarkar, Sumona ; Lin-Gibson, Sheng ; Farooque, Tanya M ; Jyotsnendu, Giri ; Wang, Dongbo ; Kohn, Joachim ; Bolikal, Durgadas ; Simon, Carl G</creator><creatorcontrib>Tutak, Wojtek ; Sarkar, Sumona ; Lin-Gibson, Sheng ; Farooque, Tanya M ; Jyotsnendu, Giri ; Wang, Dongbo ; Kohn, Joachim ; Bolikal, Durgadas ; Simon, Carl G</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Nanofiber scaffolds are effective for tissue engineering since they emulate the fibrous nanostructure of native extracellular matrix (ECM). Although electrospinning has been the most common approach for fabricating nanofiber scaffolds, airbrushing approaches have also been advanced for making nanofibers. For airbrushing, compressed gas is used to blow polymer solution through a small nozzle which shears the polymer solution into fibers. Our goals were 1) to assess the versatility of airbrushing, 2) to compare the properties of airbrushed and electrospun nanofiber scaffolds and 3) to test the ability of airbrushed nanofibers to support stem cell differentiation. The results demonstrated that airbrushing could produce nanofibers from a wide range of polymers and onto a wide range of targets. Airbrushing was safer, 10-fold faster, 100-fold less expensive to set-up and able to deposit nanofibers onto a broader range of targets than electrospinning. Airbrushing yielded nanofibers that formed loosely packed bundles of aligned nanofibers, while electrospinning produced un-aligned, single nanofibers that were tightly packed and highly entangled. Airbrushed nanofiber mats had larger pores, higher porosity and lower modulus than electrospun mats, results that were likely caused by the differences in morphology (nanofiber packing and entanglement). Airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds fabricated from 4 different polymers were each able to support osteogenic differentiation of primary human bone marrow stromal cells (hBMSCs). Finally, the differences in airbrushed versus electrospun nanofiber morphology caused differences in hBMSC shape where cells had a smaller spread area and a smaller volume on airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds. These results highlight the advantages and disadvantages of airbrushing versus electrospinning nanofiber scaffolds and demonstrate that airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds can support stem cell differentiation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0142-9612</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5905</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.12.020</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23312903</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Advanced Basic Science ; Airbrushing ; Biomedical materials ; Bone marrow ; Bone marrow stromal cell ; Cell differentiation ; Cell Differentiation - physiology ; Cells, Cultured ; Dentistry ; Differentiation ; Electrospinning ; Humans ; Mats ; Mesenchymal Stromal Cells - cytology ; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning ; Morphology ; Nanofiber ; Nanofibers ; Nanostructure ; Porosity ; Scaffolds ; Stem cell ; Stem Cells - cytology ; Tissue Engineering - methods ; Tissue Scaffolds - chemistry</subject><ispartof>Biomaterials, 2013-03, Vol.34 (10), p.2389-2398</ispartof><rights>2012</rights><rights>Published by Elsevier Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c567t-2a6dc8f3dde1bd8aa7f97981ae542bf393e3dbc150a8b4ad166c7a49b8e3faa03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c567t-2a6dc8f3dde1bd8aa7f97981ae542bf393e3dbc150a8b4ad166c7a49b8e3faa03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142961212014007$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23312903$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tutak, Wojtek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sarkar, Sumona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin-Gibson, Sheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farooque, Tanya M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jyotsnendu, Giri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Dongbo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kohn, Joachim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bolikal, Durgadas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, Carl G</creatorcontrib><title>The support of bone marrow stromal cell differentiation by airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds</title><title>Biomaterials</title><addtitle>Biomaterials</addtitle><description>Abstract Nanofiber scaffolds are effective for tissue engineering since they emulate the fibrous nanostructure of native extracellular matrix (ECM). Although electrospinning has been the most common approach for fabricating nanofiber scaffolds, airbrushing approaches have also been advanced for making nanofibers. For airbrushing, compressed gas is used to blow polymer solution through a small nozzle which shears the polymer solution into fibers. Our goals were 1) to assess the versatility of airbrushing, 2) to compare the properties of airbrushed and electrospun nanofiber scaffolds and 3) to test the ability of airbrushed nanofibers to support stem cell differentiation. The results demonstrated that airbrushing could produce nanofibers from a wide range of polymers and onto a wide range of targets. Airbrushing was safer, 10-fold faster, 100-fold less expensive to set-up and able to deposit nanofibers onto a broader range of targets than electrospinning. Airbrushing yielded nanofibers that formed loosely packed bundles of aligned nanofibers, while electrospinning produced un-aligned, single nanofibers that were tightly packed and highly entangled. Airbrushed nanofiber mats had larger pores, higher porosity and lower modulus than electrospun mats, results that were likely caused by the differences in morphology (nanofiber packing and entanglement). Airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds fabricated from 4 different polymers were each able to support osteogenic differentiation of primary human bone marrow stromal cells (hBMSCs). Finally, the differences in airbrushed versus electrospun nanofiber morphology caused differences in hBMSC shape where cells had a smaller spread area and a smaller volume on airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds. These results highlight the advantages and disadvantages of airbrushing versus electrospinning nanofiber scaffolds and demonstrate that airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds can support stem cell differentiation.</description><subject>Advanced Basic Science</subject><subject>Airbrushing</subject><subject>Biomedical materials</subject><subject>Bone marrow</subject><subject>Bone marrow stromal cell</subject><subject>Cell differentiation</subject><subject>Cell Differentiation - physiology</subject><subject>Cells, Cultured</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Differentiation</subject><subject>Electrospinning</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mats</subject><subject>Mesenchymal Stromal Cells - cytology</subject><subject>Microscopy, Electron, Scanning</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>Nanofiber</subject><subject>Nanofibers</subject><subject>Nanostructure</subject><subject>Porosity</subject><subject>Scaffolds</subject><subject>Stem cell</subject><subject>Stem Cells - cytology</subject><subject>Tissue Engineering - methods</subject><subject>Tissue Scaffolds - chemistry</subject><issn>0142-9612</issn><issn>1878-5905</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNUsuKFDEUDaI4PaO_IMGVm2rzqEfiQpBRR2HAhePCVbhJbpi01ZU2qVL6703Ro4gbBwKXwHlc7jmEPOdsyxnvX-62NqY9zJgjjGUrGBfb-phgD8iGq0E1nWbdQ7JhvBWN7rk4I-el7Fj9s1Y8JmdCSi40kxvy9eYWaVkOh5RnmgK1aUK6h5zTT1rmXG1G6nAcqY8hYMZpjjDHNFF7pBCzzUu5RU8nmFKIFjMtDkJIoy9PyKNQ18Ond_OCfHn_7ubyQ3P96erj5ZvrxnX9MDcCeu9UkN4jt14BDEEPWnHArhU2SC1Reut4x0DZFjzvezdAq61CGQCYvCAvTrqHnL4vWGazj2VdGSZMSzGVoJViTN0L2nKtByX-DxVKdHxodVuhr05Ql1MpGYM55FhPeDScmTUwszN_B2bWwKqAqYFV8rM7n8Xu0f-h_k6oAt6eAFhv-CNiNsVFnBz6mNHNxqd4P5_X_8i4MU7RwfgNj1h2acnTyuGmVIL5vFZnbQ4Xa2nYIH8BI3LEAw</recordid><startdate>20130301</startdate><enddate>20130301</enddate><creator>Tutak, Wojtek</creator><creator>Sarkar, Sumona</creator><creator>Lin-Gibson, Sheng</creator><creator>Farooque, Tanya M</creator><creator>Jyotsnendu, Giri</creator><creator>Wang, Dongbo</creator><creator>Kohn, Joachim</creator><creator>Bolikal, Durgadas</creator><creator>Simon, Carl G</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>L7M</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130301</creationdate><title>The support of bone marrow stromal cell differentiation by airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds</title><author>Tutak, Wojtek ; Sarkar, Sumona ; Lin-Gibson, Sheng ; Farooque, Tanya M ; Jyotsnendu, Giri ; Wang, Dongbo ; Kohn, Joachim ; Bolikal, Durgadas ; Simon, Carl G</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c567t-2a6dc8f3dde1bd8aa7f97981ae542bf393e3dbc150a8b4ad166c7a49b8e3faa03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Advanced Basic Science</topic><topic>Airbrushing</topic><topic>Biomedical materials</topic><topic>Bone marrow</topic><topic>Bone marrow stromal cell</topic><topic>Cell differentiation</topic><topic>Cell Differentiation - physiology</topic><topic>Cells, Cultured</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Differentiation</topic><topic>Electrospinning</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mats</topic><topic>Mesenchymal Stromal Cells - cytology</topic><topic>Microscopy, Electron, Scanning</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>Nanofiber</topic><topic>Nanofibers</topic><topic>Nanostructure</topic><topic>Porosity</topic><topic>Scaffolds</topic><topic>Stem cell</topic><topic>Stem Cells - cytology</topic><topic>Tissue Engineering - methods</topic><topic>Tissue Scaffolds - chemistry</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tutak, Wojtek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sarkar, Sumona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin-Gibson, Sheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farooque, Tanya M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jyotsnendu, Giri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Dongbo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kohn, Joachim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bolikal, Durgadas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, Carl G</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><jtitle>Biomaterials</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tutak, Wojtek</au><au>Sarkar, Sumona</au><au>Lin-Gibson, Sheng</au><au>Farooque, Tanya M</au><au>Jyotsnendu, Giri</au><au>Wang, Dongbo</au><au>Kohn, Joachim</au><au>Bolikal, Durgadas</au><au>Simon, Carl G</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The support of bone marrow stromal cell differentiation by airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds</atitle><jtitle>Biomaterials</jtitle><addtitle>Biomaterials</addtitle><date>2013-03-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>2389</spage><epage>2398</epage><pages>2389-2398</pages><issn>0142-9612</issn><eissn>1878-5905</eissn><abstract>Abstract Nanofiber scaffolds are effective for tissue engineering since they emulate the fibrous nanostructure of native extracellular matrix (ECM). Although electrospinning has been the most common approach for fabricating nanofiber scaffolds, airbrushing approaches have also been advanced for making nanofibers. For airbrushing, compressed gas is used to blow polymer solution through a small nozzle which shears the polymer solution into fibers. Our goals were 1) to assess the versatility of airbrushing, 2) to compare the properties of airbrushed and electrospun nanofiber scaffolds and 3) to test the ability of airbrushed nanofibers to support stem cell differentiation. The results demonstrated that airbrushing could produce nanofibers from a wide range of polymers and onto a wide range of targets. Airbrushing was safer, 10-fold faster, 100-fold less expensive to set-up and able to deposit nanofibers onto a broader range of targets than electrospinning. Airbrushing yielded nanofibers that formed loosely packed bundles of aligned nanofibers, while electrospinning produced un-aligned, single nanofibers that were tightly packed and highly entangled. Airbrushed nanofiber mats had larger pores, higher porosity and lower modulus than electrospun mats, results that were likely caused by the differences in morphology (nanofiber packing and entanglement). Airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds fabricated from 4 different polymers were each able to support osteogenic differentiation of primary human bone marrow stromal cells (hBMSCs). Finally, the differences in airbrushed versus electrospun nanofiber morphology caused differences in hBMSC shape where cells had a smaller spread area and a smaller volume on airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds. These results highlight the advantages and disadvantages of airbrushing versus electrospinning nanofiber scaffolds and demonstrate that airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds can support stem cell differentiation.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>23312903</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.12.020</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0142-9612
ispartof Biomaterials, 2013-03, Vol.34 (10), p.2389-2398
issn 0142-9612
1878-5905
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1669880080
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Advanced Basic Science
Airbrushing
Biomedical materials
Bone marrow
Bone marrow stromal cell
Cell differentiation
Cell Differentiation - physiology
Cells, Cultured
Dentistry
Differentiation
Electrospinning
Humans
Mats
Mesenchymal Stromal Cells - cytology
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
Morphology
Nanofiber
Nanofibers
Nanostructure
Porosity
Scaffolds
Stem cell
Stem Cells - cytology
Tissue Engineering - methods
Tissue Scaffolds - chemistry
title The support of bone marrow stromal cell differentiation by airbrushed nanofiber scaffolds
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T14%3A18%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20support%20of%20bone%20marrow%20stromal%20cell%20differentiation%20by%20airbrushed%20nanofiber%20scaffolds&rft.jtitle=Biomaterials&rft.au=Tutak,%20Wojtek&rft.date=2013-03-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=2389&rft.epage=2398&rft.pages=2389-2398&rft.issn=0142-9612&rft.eissn=1878-5905&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.12.020&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1664199782%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1282517494&rft_id=info:pmid/23312903&rft_els_id=S0142961212014007&rfr_iscdi=true