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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Biomaterials 2013-03, Vol.34 (10), p.2389-2398 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
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 & 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 & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & 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 |