Preparation of flexible bone tissue scaffold utilizing sea urchin test and collagen

  • Naga Vijaya Lakshmi Manchinasetty
  • Sho Oshima
  • Masanori Kikuchi
Tissue Engineering Constructs and Cell Substrates Original Research
  • 197 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Tissue Engineering Constructs and Cell Substrates

Abstract

Gonads of sea urchin are consumed in Japan and some countries as food and most parts including its tests are discarded as marine wastes. Therefore, utilization of them as functional materials would reduce the waste as well as encourage Japanese fishery. In this study, magnesium containing calcite granules collected from sea urchin tests were hydrothermally phosphatized and the obtained granules were identified as approximately 82% in mass of magnesium containing β-tricalcium phosphate and 18% in mass of nonstoichiometric hydroxyapatite, i.e., a biphasic calcium phosphate, maintaining the original porous network. Shape-controlled scaffolds were fabricated with the obtained biphasic calcium phosphate granules and collagen. The scaffolds showed good open porosity (83.84%) and adequate mechanical properties for handling during cell culture and subsequent operations. The MG-63 cells showed higher proliferation and osteogenic differentiation in comparison to a control material, the collagen sponge with the same size. Furthermore, cell viability assay proved that the scaffolds were not cytotoxic. These results suggest that scaffold prepared using sea urchin test derived calcium phosphate and collagen could be a potential candidate of bone void fillers for non-load bearing defects in bone reconstruction as well as scaffolds for bone tissue engineering.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mr. Taira Sato for his help with the ICP-AES analysis. The authors express their sincere thanks to Prof. Yagi Hiroki, Otaru University of commerce, Japan and Higashi-shakotan fishery cooperative for providing sea urchin tests. This study in part was supported by revitalizing a local community by the development of new materials with sea urchin shells, the program for a proportion of practical uses with fish industries waste resources, Shakotan, Hokkaido, Japan.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Boskey AL, Coleman R. Aging and bone. J Dent Res United States. 2010;89:1333–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Young MF. Bone matrix proteins: their function, regulation, and relationship to osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int Engl. 2003;14 Suppl 3:S35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Laurencin C, Khan Y, El-Amin SF. Bone graft substitutes. Expert Rev Med Devices Engl. 2006;3:49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Finkemeier CG, Bone-grafting and bone-graft substitutes. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2002;84−A:454–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amini AR, Laurencin CT, Nukavarapu SP. Bone tissue engineering: recent advances and challenges. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2012;40:2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Laurencin CT, Ambrosio AMA, Borden MD, Cooper JA. Tissue engineering: orthopedic applications. Annu Rev Biomed Eng Annu Rev. 1999;1:19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fröhlich M, Grayson W, Wan L, Marolt D, Drobnic M, Vunjak-Novakovic G. Tissue Engineered Bone Grafts: Biological Requirements, Tissue Culture and Clinical Relevance. Curr. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2008;3(4):254–264.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Place ES, Evans ND, Stevens MM. Complexity in biomaterials for tissue engineering. Nat Mater. 2009;8:457–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials. 2005;26:5474–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oonishi H, Hench LL, Wilson J, Sugihara F, Tsuji E, Kushitani S, et al. Comparative bone growth behavior in granules of bioceramic materials of various sizes. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;44:31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dhandayuthapani B, Yoshida Y, Maekawa T, Kumar DS. Polymeric scaffolds in tissue engineering application: A review. Int J Polym Sci. 2011; https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/290602.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    LeGeros RZ. Properties of osteoconductive biomaterials: calcium phosphates. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;395:81–98.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yuan H, Yang Z, Li Y, Zhang X, De Bruijn JD, De Groot K. Osteoinduction by calcium phosphate biomaterials. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1998;9:723–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roy DM, Linnehan SK. Hydroxyapatite formed from coral skeletal carbonate by hydrothermal exchange. Nature. 1974;247:220–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ben-Nissan B. Natural bioceramics: from coral to bone and beyond. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci. 2003;7:283–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barros AA, Aroso IM, Silva TH, Mano JF, Duarte AR, Reis RL. In vitro bioactivity studies of ceramic structures isolated from marine sponges. Biomed Mater. 2016;11:45004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ivankovic H, Gallego Ferrer G, Tkalcec E, Orlic S, Ivankovic M. Preparation of highly porous hydroxyapatite from cuttlefish bone. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2009;20:1039–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vecchio KS, Zhang X, Massie JB, Wang M, Kim CW. Conversion of sea urchin spines to Mg-substituted tricalcium phosphate for bone implants. Acta Biomater Engl. 2007;3:785–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clarke SA, Walsh P. Marine organisms for bone repair and regeneration. In: Mallick K, editor. Bone Substituted Biomaterials. 2014. p. 294–318.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holzapfel BM, Reichert JC, Schantz J-T, Gbureck U, Rackwitz L, Nöth U, et al. How smart do biomaterials need to be? A translational science and clinical point of view. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013;65:581–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fellah BH, Gauthier O, Weiss P, Chappard D, Layrolle P. Osteogenicity of biphasic calcium phosphate ceramics and bone autograft in a goat model. Biomaterials. 2008;29:1177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bohner M. Silicon-substituted calcium phosphates—a critical view. Biomaterials. 2009;30:6403–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Habibovic P, Barralet JE. Bioinorganics and biomaterials: bone repair. Acta Biomater Engl. 2011;7:3013–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kannan S, Rocha JHG, Agathopoulos S, Ferreira JMF. Fluorine-substituted hydroxyapatite scaffolds hydrothermally grown from aragonitic cuttlefish bones. Acta Biomater. 2007;3:243–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Holmes RE, Bucholz RW, Mooney V. Porous hydroxyapatite as a bone-graft substitute in metaphyseal defects. A histometric study. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1986;68:904–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vuola J, Taurio R, Goransson H, Asko-Seljavaara S. Compressive strength of calcium carbonate and hydroxyapatite implants after bone-marrow-induced osteogenesis. Biomaterials. 1998;19:223–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Das S, Mangwani N. Ocean acidification and marine microorganisms: responses and consequences. Oceanologia. 2015;57:349–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Akino M, Aso S, Kimura M. Effectiveness of biological filter media derived from sea urchin skeletons. Fish Sci. 2015;81:923–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tamasan M, Ozyegin LS, Oktar FN, Simon V. Characterization of calcium phosphate powders originating from Phyllacanthus imperialis and Trochidae Infundibulum concavus marine shells. Mater Sci Eng C. 2013;33:2569–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ağaoğullari D, Kel D, Gökçe H, Duman I, Öveçoğlu ML. Bioceramic Production from Sea Urchins. Acta Physica Polonica A. 2012;121:1–4.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Borzęcka-Prokop B, Wesełucha-Birczyńska A, Koszowska E. MicroRaman, PXRD, EDS and microscopic investigation of magnesium calcite biomineral phases. The case of sea urchin biominerals. J Mol Struct. 2007;828:80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chang SJ, Huang Y-T, Yang S-C, Kuo S-M, Lee M-W. In vitro properties of gellan gum sponge as the dental filling to maintain alveolar space. Carbohydr Polym. 2012;88:684–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tsipursky SJ, Buseck PR. Structure of magnesian calcite from sea urchins. Am Mineral. 1993;78:775–81.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nyquist RA, Kagel RO. PREFACE BT—Handbook of infrared and Raman spectra of inorganic compounds and organic salts. San Diego: Academic Press; 1971. p. vii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang X, Vecchio KS. Conversion of natural marine skeletons as scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Front Mater Sci. 2013;7:103–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ishikawa K. Bone substitute fabrication based on dissolution-precipitation reactions. Materials. 2010;3:1138–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kannan S, Ventura JM, Ferreira JMF. Aqueous precipitation method for the formation of Mg-stabilized β-tricalcium phosphate: an X-ray diffraction study. Ceram Int. 2007;33:637–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reddy MM, Nancollas GH. The crystallization of calcium carbonate. J Cryst Growth. 1976;35:33–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Safronova TV, Putlyaev VI, Avramenko OA, Shekhirev MA, Veresov AG. Ca-deficient hydroxyapatite powder for producing tricalcium phosphate based ceramics. Glas Ceram. 2011;68:28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Loh QL, Choong C, Three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering applications: role of porosity and pore size. Tissue Eng Part B. 2013;19:485–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kikuchi M, Koyama Y, Edamura K, Irie A. Synthesis of hydroxyapatite/collagen bone-like nanocomposite and its biological reactions. Adv Nanocomposites—Synth Charact Ind Appl. 2007;2:181–94.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sotome S, Ae K, Okawa A, Ishizuki M, Morioka H, Matsumoto S, et al. Efficacy and safety of porous hydroxyapatite/type 1 collagen composite implantation for bone regeneration: a randomized controlled study. J Orthop Sci. 2016;21:373–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yoshida T, Kikuchi M, Koyama Y, Takakuda K. Osteogenic activity of MG63 cells on bone-like hydroxyapatite/collagen nanocomposite sponges. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2010;21:1263–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Matsuno T, Nakamura T, Kuremoto K, Notazawa S, Nakahara T, Hashimoto Y, et al. Development of beta-tricalcium phosphate/collagen sponge composite for bone regeneration. Dent Mater J Jpn. 2006;25:138–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lobo SE, Livingston Arinzeh T. Biphasic Calcium Phosphate Ceramics for Bone Regeneration and Tissue Engineering Applications. Mater. 2010;3:815–826.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lee E-U, Kim D-J, Lim H-C, Lee J-S, Jung U-W, Choi S-H. Comparative evaluation of biphasic calcium phosphate and biphasic calcium phosphate collagen composite on osteoconductive potency in rabbit calvarial defect. Biomater Res. 2015;19:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Bioengineering and BioinformaticsGraduate School of Information Science and TechnologySapporoJapan
  2. 2.Bioceramics Group, Research Center for Functional MaterialsNational Institute for Materials ScienceTsukubaJapan
  3. 3.Design and Production Process EngineeringGraduate School of Science and Engineering, Ibaraki UniversityHitachiJapan

Personalised recommendations