Differences in osteogenic induction of human mesenchymal stem cells between a tailored 3D hybrid scaffold and a 2D standard culture
- 8 Downloads
Many medical-related scientific discoveries arise from trial-error patterns where the processes involved must be refined and modified continuously before any product could be able to reach the final costumers. One of the elements affecting negatively these processes is the inaccuracy of two-dimension (2D) standard culture systems, carried over in plastic plates or similar, in replicating complex environments and patterns. Consequently, animal tests are required to validate every in vitro finding, at the expenses of more funds and ethical issues. A possible solution relies in the implementation of three-dimension (3D) culture systems as a fitting gear between the 2D tests and in vivo tests, aiming to reduce the negative in vivo outcomes. These 3D structures are depending from the comprehension of the extracellular matrix (ECM) and the ability to replicate it in vitro. In this article a comparison of efficacies between these two culture systems was taken as subject, human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) was utilized and a hybrid scaffold made by a blend of chitosan, gelatin and biomineralized gelatin was used for the 3D culture system.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
- 3.de la Puente P, Muz B, Gilson RC, Azab F, Luderer M, King J, et al. 3D tissue-engineered bone marrow as a novel model to study pathophysiology and drug resistance in multiple myeloma. Biomater. 2015;73:70–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.09.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Krishnakumar GS, Gostynska N, Dapporto M, Campodoni E, Montesi M, Panseri S, et al. Evaluation of different crosslinking agents on hybrid biomimetic collagen-hydroxyapatite composites for regenerative medicine. Int J Biol Macromol. 2018;106:739–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.08.076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Minardi S, Corradetti B, Taraballi F, Sandri M, Van Eps J, Cabrera FJ, et al. Evaluation of the osteoinductive potential of a bio-inspired scaffold mimicking the osteogenic niche for bone augmentation. Biomater. 2015;62:128–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.05.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Giorgi P, Capitani D, Sprio S, Sandri M, Tampieri A, Canella V, et al. A new bioinspired collagen-hydroxyapatite bone graft substitute in adult scoliosis surgery: Results at 3-year follow-up. J Appl Biomaterials & Functional Materials. 2017;15:262–70. https://doi.org/10.5301/jabfm.5000366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Mann S. Biomineralization: principles and concepts in bioinorganic materials chemistry. Bristol, UK: Oxford University Press on Demand; 2001.Google Scholar
- 29.Rodríguez GR, Patrício T, López JD. Natural polymers for bone repair. Bone Repair Biomaterials. Duxford, UK: Elsevier; 2019. p. 199–232.Google Scholar
- 33.Preti L, Lambiase B, Campodoni E, Sandri M, Ruffini A, Pugno N et al. Nature-inspired processes and structures: new paradigms to develop highly bioactive devices for hard tissue regeneration. Bio-Inspired Technology. London, UK: IntechOpen; 2019.Google Scholar