Development of a Three-Dimensional Bone-Like Construct in a Soft Self-Assembling Peptide Matrix

Marí-Buyé, Núria; Luque, Tomás; Navajas, Daniel; Semino, Carlos E.

doi:10.1089/ten.tea.2012.0077

Cited by 29 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In another study, varying concentrations of Puramatrix™ were added to the hydrogel to control matrix stiffness. 100 Peptide concentrations varied from 0.15 to 0.5% w/v. As measured by rheometry, material stiffness increased from 120 Pa at 0.15% peptide concentration to 1480 Pa at.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaffold Design for Bone Regeneration

Polo-Corrales¹,

Latorre-Esteves²,

Ramı́rez-Vick³

2014

j. nanosci. nanotech.

766

502

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of bone grafts is the standard to treat skeletal fractures, or to replace and regenerate lost bone, as demonstrated by the large number of bone graft procedures performed worldwide. The most common of these is the autograft, however, its use can lead to complications such as pain, infection, scarring, blood loss, and donor-site morbidity. The alternative is allografts, but they lack the osteoactive capacity of autografts and carry the risk of carrying infectious agents or immune rejection. Other approaches, such as the bone graft substitutes, have focused on improving the efficacy of bone grafts or other scaffolds by incorporating bone progenitor cells and growth factors to stimulate cells. An ideal bone graft or scaffold should be made of biomaterials that imitate the structure and properties of natural bone ECM, include osteoprogenitor cells and provide all the necessary environmental cues found in natural bone. However, creating living tissue constructs that are structurally, functionally and mechanically comparable to the natural bone has been a challenge so far. This focus of this review is on the evolution of these scaffolds as bone graft substitutes in the process of recreating the bone tissue microenvironment, including biochemical and biophysical cues.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaffold Design for Bone Regeneration

Polo-Corrales¹,

Latorre-Esteves²,

Ramı́rez-Vick³

2014

j. nanosci. nanotech.

766

502

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By contrast, intramembranous ossification occurs during development by direct differentiation of MSCs into bone forming osteoblasts within a soft mesenchymal matrix [7], where the shear modulus of embryonic tissues has been estimated to be in the range of 100–1000 Pa [9], [10]. Previous studies have also demonstrated that in vitro osteogenic differentiation can occur on compliant materials [11], [12], and in vivo osteogenic differentiation has also been observed in soft substrates over the range of 50 to 500 Pa [13], [14], which is similar to the stiffnesses of matrices in the developing embryo where intramembranous ossification occurs. Thus, these studies indicate that other properties of the ECM, such as the presentation and density of adhesion ligands and biochemical factors, are sufficient to drive osteogenic differentiation of hMSCs in vivo in the absence of a rigid matrix or tissue substrate [15], [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controlling Osteogenic Stem Cell Differentiation via Soft Bioinspired Hydrogels

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) is guided by various physical and biochemical factors. Among these factors, modulus (i.e., rigidiy) of the ECM has gained significant attention as a physical osteoinductive signal that can contribute to endochondral ossification of a cartilaginous skeletal template. However, MSCs also participate in intramembranous bone formation, which occurs de novo from within or on a more compliant tissue environment. To further understand the role of the matrix interactions in this process, we evaluated osteogenic differentiation of hMSCs cultured on low moduli (102, 390 or 970 Pa) poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (p(NIPAAm)) based semi-interpenetrating networks (sIPN) modified with the integrin engaging peptide bsp-RGD(15) (0, 105 or 210 µM). Cell adhesion, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation of hMSCs, as measured by alkaline phosphatase (ALP), runt-related transcription factor 2 (RUNX2), bone sialoprotein-2 (iBSP), and osteocalcien (OCN) protein expression, was highest on substrates with the highest modulus and peptide concentrations. However, within this range of substrate stiffness, many osteogenic cellular functions were enhanced by increasing either the modulus or the peptide density. These findings suggest that within a compliant and low modulus substrate, a high affinity adhesive ligand serves as a substitute for a rigid matrix to foster osteogenic differentiation.

show abstract

“…Biocompatible and biodegradable [147][148][149][150][151][152]. The changes in mechanical properties imparted by the addition of PDIPF to PCL could have an effect on bone formation, but that effect is cell type dependent [156].…”

Section: Peptide Hydrogelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone Graft Substitutes for Bone Defect Regeneration. A Collective Review

Kheirallah¹,

Almeshaly²

2016

IJDOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this review article is to illustrate the current state of development of bone graft substitutes that could be used for bone defect regeneration, as well as to analyze their efficacy for clinical use. Methods: An electronic search of the PubMed, was performed for articles written in English. The focused question was "ideal graft substitute material to choose in clinical practice"?. The searches were limited to articles including: bone graft, bone defect scaffold, bone substitutes, and bone regeneration. An attempt was made to identify clinical studies. During the data collection, the data were extracted from the studies including scaffold material, properties and advantages of bone substitutes, as well as clinical results if the study has been provided clinically. Results: In spite of several acceptable scaffold options available for bone regeneration, these options still need to bridge the gap between research and clinical practice. There is little information available about the cellular basis for bone regeneration in humans. Several problems limit the broad usage of such options, including lack of randomized controlled human studies, and dubious long term results. Conclusion:The studies should be nurtured and monitored by a combination of clinical experience. Future trends may focus on the effective combinations of osteoinductive materials, osteoinductive growth factors and cell-based tissue regeneration tactics using composite carriers. There is no single ideal graft material to choose in clinical practice, therefore researches are ongoing in all relevant fields, to establish modern bone regeneration protocols that may lead to the innovation of ideal graft substitutes.

show abstract

Development of a Three-Dimensional Bone-Like Construct in a Soft Self-Assembling Peptide Matrix

Cited by 29 publications

References 47 publications

Scaffold Design for Bone Regeneration

Scaffold Design for Bone Regeneration

Controlling Osteogenic Stem Cell Differentiation via Soft Bioinspired Hydrogels

Bone Graft Substitutes for Bone Defect Regeneration. A Collective Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About