Advertisement

In vitro characterization and ex vivo surgical evaluation of human hair keratin films in ocular surface reconstruction after sterilization processing

  • Maria Borrelli
  • Stephan Reichl
  • Yaqing Feng
  • Marc Schargus
  • Stefan Schrader
  • Gerd Geerling
Article

Abstract

The disadvantages of human amniotic membrane (hAM), used for ocular surface reconstruction, necessitate the development of standardized alternatives. Keratin-derived-films (KF) have been indicated as transferable substrate for cell cultivation and tissue engineering. The impact of different sterilization procedures on KF and surgical feasibility were investigated. Human hair KF were prepared and sterilized; optical, biomechanical properties, in vitro cell seeding efficiency and proliferation of human corneal epithelial cells were studied and compared with hAM. Surgical feasibility was tested on enucleated porcine eye. Sterilized KF showed higher light transmission and significantly higher E-modulus than hAM; cell-seeding-efficiency and proliferation rate were not affected. Although KF could be surgically handled, suture placement was more difficult compared to hAM. Plasma treatment seems the best sterilization method for KF; it does not affect cell biology or optical and biomechanical properties. However material modifications are requested before KF may represent a feasible alternative for ocular surface reconstruction.

Keywords

Ocular Surface Amniotic Membrane Ethanol Treatment Corneal Epithelial Cell Human Amniotic Membrane 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. K. Araki-Sasaki (Kagoshima, Japan) for his generous gift of the HCE-T cell line, and Dr. Meyer (Department of Ophthalmology, University of Würzburg, Germany) for help with the statistical analysis. Furthermore, special thanks are given to Drs. T. Klink, R. Guthoff and H. Sold (Department of Ophthalmology, University of Würzburg, Germany) for their time spent in the laboratory participating in the surgical feasibility tests, as well as Lucia Albrecht and Gesa Grobe (Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany) for their technical assistance in the cell culture studies and tensile strength testing. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG grants Re 2596/3-1 and Ge 895/7-1.

References

  1. 1.
    Dua HS, Gomes JA, King AJ, Maharajan VS. The amniotic membrane in ophthalmology. Surv Ophthalmol. 2004;49:51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee SH, Tseng SC. Amniotic membrane transplantation for persistent epithelial defects with ulceration. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;123:303–12.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen HJ, Pires RT, Tseng SC. Amniotic membrane transplantation for severe neurotrophic corneal ulcers. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:826–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hanada K, Shimazaki J, Shimmura S, Tsubota K. Multilayered amniotic membrane transplantation for severe ulceration of the cornea and sclera. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;131:324–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rodríguez-Ares MT, Touriño R, López-Valladares MJ, Gude F. Multilayer amniotic membrane transplantation in the treatment of corneal perforations. Cornea. 2004;23:577–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tsubota K, Satake Y, Ohyama M, et al. Surgical reconstruction of the ocular surface in advanced ocular cicatricial pemphigoid and Stevens–Johnson syndrome. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;122:38–52.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tseng SC, Prabhasawat P, Lee SH. Amniotic membrane transplantation for conjunctival surface reconstruction. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;124:765–74.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nakamura T, Inatomi T, Sekiyama E, Ang LPK, Yokoi N, Kinoshita S. Novel clinical application of sterilized, freeze-dried amniotic membrane to treat patients with pterygium. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84:401–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tsai RJ, Li LM, Chen JK. Reconstruction of damaged corneas by transplantation of autologous limbal epithelial cells. N Eng J Med. 2000;343:86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rama P, Bonini S, Lambiase A, et al. Autologous fibrin-cultured limbal stem cells permanently restore the corneal surface of patients with total limbal stem cell deficiency. Transplantation. 2001;72:1478–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shimazaki J, Aiba M, Goto E, Kato N, Shimmura S, Tsubota K. Transplantation of human limbal epithelium cultivate on amniotic membrane for the treatment of severe ocular surface disorders. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:1285–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eberle J, Habermann J, Gürtler LG. HIV-1 infection transmitted by serum droplets into the eye: a case report. AIDS. 2000;14(2):206–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gündüz K, Uçakhan OO, Kanpolat A, Günalp I. Nonpreserved human amniotic membrane transplantation for conjunctival reconstruction after excision of extensive ocular surface neoplasia. Eye. 2006;20:351–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gicquel JJ, Dua HS, Brodie A, et al. Epidermal growth factor variations in amniotic membrane used for ex vivo tissue constructs. Tissue Eng Part A. 2009;15:1919–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rahman I, Said DG, Maharajan VS, Dua HS. Amniotic membrane in ophthalmology: indications and limitations. Eye. 2009;23:1954–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kruse FE, Joussen AM, Rohrschneider K, et al. Cryopreserved human amniotic membrane for ocular surface reconstruction. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2000;238:68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rama P, Giannini R, Bruni A, Gatto C, Tiso R, Ponzin D. Further evaluation of amniotic membrane banking for transplantation in ocular surface diseases. Cell Tissue Bank. 2001;2:155–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rodríguez-Ares MT, López-Valladares MJ, Touriño R, et al. Effects of lyophilization on human amniotic membrane. Acta Ophthalmol. 2009;87:396–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dua HS, Rahman I, Miri A, Said DG. Variations in amniotic membrane: relevance for clinical applications. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94:963–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hopkinson A, McIntosh RS, Tighe PJ, James DK, Dua HS. Amniotic membrane for ocular surface reconstruction: donor variations and the effect of handling on TGF-beta contents. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:4316–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bourne GL. The microscopic anatomy of the human amnion and chorion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1960;79:1070–3.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koizumi N, Inatomi T, Sotozono C, Fullwood NJ, Quantock AJ, Kinoshita S. Growth factor mRNA and protein in preserved human amniotic membrane. Curr Eye Res. 2000;20:173–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    López-Valladares MJ, Rodríguez-Ares MT, Touriño R, Gude F, Silva MT, Couceiro J. Donor age and gestational age influence on growth factor levels in human amniotic membrane. Acta Ophthalmol. 2010;88:211–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hill P, Brantley H, Van Dyke M. Some properties of keratin biomaterials: kerateines. Biomaterials. 2010;31:585–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schrooyen PM, Dijkstra PJ, Oberthür RC, Bantjes A, Feijen J. Partially carboxymethylated feather keratins. 2. Thermal and mechanical properties of films. J Agric Food Chem. 2001;49:221–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Verma P, Ray P, Ray AR. Preparation of scaffolds from human hair proteins for tissue-engineering applications. Biomed Mater. 2008;3:25007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tachibana A, Kaneko S, Tanabe T, Yamauchi K. Rapid fabrication of keratin-hydroxyapatite hybrid sponges toward osteoblast cultivation and differentiation. Biomaterials. 2005;26:297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sierpinski P, Garrett J, Ma J, et al. The use of keratin biomaterials derived from human hair for the promotion of rapid regeneration of peripheral nerves. Biomaterials. 2008;29:118–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chen Y, Dong WR, Xiao YQ, Zhao BL, Hu GD, An LB. Preparation and bioactivity of human hair keratin-collagen sponge, a new type of dermal analogue. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2006;26:131–8.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dias G, Peplow P, McLaughlin A, Teixeira F, Kelly R. Biocompatibility and osseointegration of reconstituted keratin in an ovine model. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2010;92:513–20.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    de Guzman RC, Merrill MR, Richter JR, Hamzi RI, Greengauz-Roberts OK, Van Dyke ME. Mechanical and biological properties of keratose biomaterials. Biomaterials. 2011;32:8205–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reichl S, Borrelli M, Geerling G. Keratin films for ocular surface reconstruction. Biomaterials. 2011;32:3375–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Riau AK, Beuerman RW, Lim LS, Mehta JS. Preservation, sterilization and de-epithelialization of human amniotic membrane for use in ocular surface reconstruction. Biomaterials. 2010;31:216–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thomasen H, Pauklin M, Noelle B, Geerling G, Vetter J, Steven P, Steuhl KP, Meller D. The effect of long-term storage on the biological and histological properties of cryopreserved amniotic membrane. Curr Eye Res. 2011;36:247–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nakamura A, Arimoto M, Takeuchi K, Fujii T. A rapid extraction procedure of human hair proteins and identification of phosphorylated species. Biol Pharm Bull. 2002;25:569–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Araki-Sasaki K, Ohashi Y, Sasabe T, et al. An SV40-immortalized human corneal epithelial cell line and its characterization. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1995;36:614–21.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yamauchi K, Maniwa M, Mori T. Cultivation of fibroblast cells on keratin-coated substrata. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 1998;9:259–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tachibana A, Furuta Y, Takeshima H, Tanabe T, Yamauchi K. Fabrication of wool keratin sponge scaffolds for long-term cell cultivation. J Biotechnol. 2002;93:165–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Reichl S. Films based on human hair keratin as substrates for cell culture and tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2009;30:6854–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yamauchi K, Hojo H, Yamamoto Y, Tanabe T. Enhanced cell adhesion on RGDS-carrying keratin film. Mater Sci Eng C. 2003;23:467–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Srinivasan B, Kumar R, Shanmugam K, Sivagnam U, Reddy N, Sehgal P. Porous keratin scaffold-promising biomaterial for tissue engineering and drug delivery. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater. 2010;92:5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rouse JG, Van Dyke ME. A review of keratin-based biomaterials for biomedical applications. Materials. 2010;3:999–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Connon CJ, Doutch J, Chen B, et al. The variation in transparency of amniotic membrane used in ocular surface regeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94:1057–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mandal B, Kundu S. Non-bioengineered silk gland fibroin protein: characterization and evaluation of matrices for potential tissue engineering applications. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008;100:1237–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rafat M, Griffith M, Hakim M, et al. Plasma surface modification and characterization of collagen-based artificial cornea for enhanced epithelialization. J Appl Polym Sci. 2007;106:2056–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Borrelli
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stephan Reichl
    • 3
  • Yaqing Feng
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marc Schargus
    • 2
  • Stefan Schrader
    • 1
  • Gerd Geerling
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity of DuesseldorfDusseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity of WuerzburgWuerzburgGermany
  3. 3.Institut für Pharmazeutische TechnologieTechnische Universität BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations