Collagen‐containing scaffolds enhance attachment and proliferation of non‐cultured bone marrow multipotential stromal cells

Abstract

Large bone defects are ideally treated with autografts, which have many limitations. Therefore, osteoconductive scaffolds loaded with autologous bone marrow (BM) aspirate are increasingly used as alternatives. The purpose of this study was to compare the growth of multipotential stromal cells (MSCs) from unprocessed BM on a collagen‐containing bovine bone scaffold (Orthoss® Collagen) with a non‐collagen‐containing bovine bone scaffold, Orthoss®. Another collagen‐containing synthetic scaffold, Vitoss® was included in the comparison. Colonization of scaffolds by BM MSCs (n = 23 donors) was evaluated using microscopy, colony forming unit‐fibroblast assay and flow‐cytometry. The number of BM MSCs initially attached to Orthoss® Collagen and Vitoss® was similar but greater than Orthoss® (p = 0.001 and p = 0.041, respectively). Furthermore, the number of MSCs released from Orthoss® Collagen and Vitoss® after 2‐week culture was also higher compared to Orthoss® (p = 0.010 and p = 0.023, respectively). Interestingly, collagen‐containing scaffolds accommodated larger numbers of lymphocytic and myelomonocytic cells. Additionally, the proliferation of culture‐expanded MSCs on Orthoss® collagen and Vitoss® was greater compared to Orthoss® (p = 0.047 and p = 0.004, respectively). Collectively, collagen‐containing scaffolds were superior in supporting the attachment and proliferation of MSCs when they were loaded with unprocessed BM aspirates. This highlights the benefit of collagen incorporation into bone scaffolds for use with autologous bone marrow aspirates as autograft substitutes. © 2015 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society. J Orthop Res 34:597–606, 2016.

When size matters: differences in demineralized bone matrix particles affect collagen structure, mesenchymal stem cell behavior, and osteogenic potential

“…In the present work, we describe how DBM preparation affect collagen, which is the major component of extracellular matrix and plays a pivotal role in supporting the attachment and proliferation of multipotent stromal cells. 28,29 Here, we produced sheep DBM particles to explore the effect of particle size on collagen structure. Using three different particle sizes, our data showed that the demineralization process affect collagen structure in relation to particle size.…”

Design and Use of Chimeric Proteins Containing a Collagen-Binding Domain for Wound Healing and Bone Regeneration

“…In order to promote osteogenesis, exogenous growth factors can thus be employed to functionalize scaffolds such as demineralized bone matrix (DBM, made of spongy bone treated with an acid) or mineralized bone matrix (MBM, made of spongy bone treated with an oxidizing process)(33,123). It is here worth noticing that some of these growth factors, such as BMP2, along with several resorbable biomaterials based on type I collagen, are already approved by the FDA for bone regeneration purposes (124)(125)(126). In this context, collagenbinding fusion proteins are very appealing to better control the localization of growth factors, and numerous chimeras were shown to improve bone regeneration when compared to their native counterparts (Table 3).…”

Cell therapy for orofacial bone regeneration: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Concentration of the mononuclear cell fraction (MNC) of bone marrow (which includes MSCs) via density gradient centrifugation steps to remove red blood cells, granulocytes, immature myeloid precursors, and platelets, represents an attractive clinical strategy, since it is currently FDA‐approved and shown to be efficacious as a point‐of‐care method of autologous cell delivery (Chahla et al., ; Jager et al., ). Moreover, since self‐renewing, plastic‐adherent MSCs represent only a small fraction (0.001%–0.01%) of MNC within the bone marrow, it may be hypothesized that a concentrate (BMAC) could increase the likelihood of attachment of these cells when loaded onto biomaterial scaffolds, and thereby ensure successful delivery to the defect site (El‐Jawhari, Sanjurjo‐Rodriguez, Jones, & Giannoudis, ).…”