Chitosan/gelatin scaffolds support bone regeneration

  • Anthie Georgopoulou
  • Fotios Papadogiannis
  • Aristea Batsali
  • John Marakis
  • Kalliopi Alpantaki
  • Aristides G. Eliopoulos
  • Charalampos Pontikoglou
  • Maria Chatzinikolaidou
Special Issue: ESB 2017 Original Research
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Issue: ESB 2017

Abstract

Chitosan/Gelatin (CS:Gel) scaffolds were fabricated by chemical crosslinking with glutaraldehyde or genipin by freeze drying. Both crosslinked CS:Gel scaffold types with a mass ratio of 40:60% form a gel-like structure with interconnected pores. Dynamic rheological measurements provided similar values for the storage modulus and the loss modulus of the CS:Gel scaffolds when crosslinked with the same concentration of glutaraldehyde vs. genipin. Compared to genipin, the glutaraldehyde-crosslinked scaffolds supported strong adhesion and infiltration of pre-osteoblasts within the pores as well as survival and proliferation of both MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblastic cells after 7 days in culture, and human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs) after 14 days in culture. The levels of collagen secreted into the extracellular matrix by the pre-osteoblasts cultured for 4 and 7 days on the CS:Gel scaffolds, significantly increased when compared to the tissue culture polystyrene (TCPS) control surface. Human BM-MSCs attached and infiltrated within the pores of the CS:Gel scaffolds allowing for a significant increase of the osteogenic gene expression of RUNX2, ALP, and OSC. Histological data following implantation of a CS:Gel scaffold into a mouse femur demonstrated that the scaffolds support the formation of extracellular matrix, while fibroblasts surrounding the porous scaffold produce collagen with minimal inflammatory reaction. These results show the potential of CS:Gel scaffolds to support new tissue formation and thus provide a promising strategy for bone tissue engineering.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge financial support from the General Secretariat for Research and Technology Aristeia II Grant ‘Osteobiomimesis 3438’. We also thank Prof. Dimitris Vlassopoulos (University of Crete, Greece) for discussions on rheological issues and support of this research. Prof. Elias Drakos is acknowledged for his support in histological study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Amini AR, Laurencin CT, Nukavarapu SP. Bone tissue engineering: recent advances and challenges. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2012;40:363–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Brien FJ. Biomaterials & scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Today. 2011;14:88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thein-Han WW, et al. Chitosan-gelatin scaffolds for tissue engineering: physico-chemical properties and biological response of buffalo embryonic stem cells and transfectant of GFP-buffalo embryonic stem cells. Acta Biomater. 2009;5:3453–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Santoro M, Tatara AM, Mikos AG. Gelatin carriers for drug and cell delivery in tissue engineering. J Control Release. 2014;190:210–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chatzinikolaidou M, et al. Adhesion and growth of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells on precise-geometry 3D organic-inorganic composite scaffolds for bone repair. Mater Sci Eng C-Mater Biol Appl. 2015;48:301–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hadjicharalambous C, et al. Porous alumina, zirconia and alumina/zirconia for bone repair: fabrication, mechanical and in vitro biological response. Biomed Mater. 2015;10:025012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    El-Rashidy AA, et al. Regenerating bone with bioactive glass scaffolds: A review of in vivo studies in bone defect models. Acta Biomater. 2017;62:1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Suh JK, Matthew HW. Application of chitosan-based polysaccharide biomaterials in cartilage tissue engineering: a review. Biomaterials. 2000;21:2589–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang Y, et al. In vitro characterization of chitosan-gelatin scaffolds for tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2005;26:7616–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Di Martino A, Sittinger M, Risbud MV. Chitosan: a versatile biopolymer for orthopaedic tissue-engineering. Biomaterials. 2005;26:5983–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miranda SCCC, et al. Three-dimensional culture of rat BMMSCs in a porous chitosan-gelatin scaffold: A promising association for bone tissue engineering in oral reconstruction. Arch Oral Biol. 2011;56:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lahiji A, et al. Chitosan supports the expression of extracellular matrix proteins in human osteoblasts and chondrocytes. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;51:586–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papadimitriou L, et al. Immunomodulatory potential of chitosan-graf t-poly(epsilon-caprolactone) Copolymers toward the polarization of bone-marrow-derived macrophages. ACS Biomater Sci & Eng. 2017;3:1341–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muzzarelli RA, et al. Stimulatory effect on bone formation exerted by a modified chitosan. Biomaterials. 1994;15:1075–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strobel HA, et al. Cellular self-assembly with microsphere incorporation for growth factor delivery within engineered vascular tissue rings. Tissue Eng Part A. 2017;23:143–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mao JS, et al. Structure and properties of bilayer chitosan-gelatin scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2003;24:1067–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tseng HJ, et al. Characterization of chitosan-gelatin scaffolds for dermal tissue engineering. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2013;7:20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xia WY, et al. Tissue engineering of cartilage with the use of chitosan-gelatin complex scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res Part B-Appl Biomater. 2004;71B:373–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang PY, et al. Dynamic compression modulates chondrocyte proliferation and matrix biosynthesis in chitosan/gelatin scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009;91:143–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kartsogiannis V, Ng KW. Cell lines and primary cell cultures in the study of bone cell biology. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2004;228:79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saeed, H et al. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) as skeletal therapeutics-an update. J Biomed Sci. 2016;23–41.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chiono V, et al. Genipin-crosslinked chitosan/gelatin blends for biomedical applications. J Mater Sci-Mater Med. 2008;19:889–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pontikoglou C, et al. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells: Biological properties and their role in hematopoiesis and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2011;7:569–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Batsali, AK et al. Differential expression of cell cycle and WNT pathway-related genes accounts for differences in the growth and differentiation potential of Wharton’s jelly and bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cell Res Ther, 2017;8:102–119.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chatzinikolaidou M, et al. Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2) immobilized on laser-fabricated 3D scaffolds enhance osteogenesis. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2017;149:233–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Delorme B, Charbord. Culture and characterization of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Methods Mol Med. 2007;140:67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cordonnier T, et al. Consistent osteoblastic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells with bone morphogenetic protein 4 and low serum. Tissue Eng Part C-Methods. 2011;17:249–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hadjicharalambous, C et al. Proliferation and osteogenic response of MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblastic cells on porous zirconia ceramics stabilized with magnesia or yttria. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2015;103A:3612–24.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hadjicharalambous C, et al. Calcium phosphate nanoparticles carrying BMP-7 plasmid DNA induce an osteogenic response in MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblasts. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2015;103:3834–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lichtinger TK, et al. Osseointegration of titanium implants by addition of recombinant bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2). Materwiss Werksttech. 2001;32:937–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Berret JF, Appell J, Porte G. Linear rheology of entangled wormlike micelles. Langmuir. 1993;9:2851–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ma PX. Biomimetic materials for tissue engineering. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2008;60:184–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lawrence BJ, Madihally SV. Cell colonization in degradable 3D porous matrices. Cell Adh Migr. 2008;2:9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Muzzarelli RAA. Genipin-crosslinked chitosan hydrogels as biomedical and pharmaceutical aids. Carbohydr Polym. 2009;77:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Danilevicius P, et al. The effect of porosity on cell ingrowth into accurately defined, laser-made, polylactide-based 3D scaffolds. Appl Surf Sci. 2015;336:2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Skarmoutsou A, et al. Nanomechanical properties of hybrid coatings for bone tissue engineering. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013;25:48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Liu Y, et al. The properties of chitosan-gelatin scaffolds by once or twice vacuum freeze-drying methods. Polym-Plast Technol Eng. 2013;52:1154–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tan JL, et al. Cells lying on a bed of microneedles: An approach to isolate mechanical force. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100:1484–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cuy JL, et al. Adhesive protein interactions with chitosan: Consequences for valve endothelial cell growth on tissue-engineering materials. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2003;67a:538–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Huang Y, Siewe M, Madihally SV. Effect of spatial architecture on cellular colonization. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2006;93:64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Oryan, A et al. Comparative study on the role of gelatin, chitosan and their combination as tissue engineered scaffolds on healing and regeneration of critical sized bone defects: an in vivo study. J Mater Sci-Mater Med. 2016;27:155–169.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthie Georgopoulou
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fotios Papadogiannis
    • 1
    • 3
  • Aristea Batsali
    • 3
  • John Marakis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kalliopi Alpantaki
    • 1
  • Aristides G. Eliopoulos
    • 4
    • 5
  • Charalampos Pontikoglou
    • 3
  • Maria Chatzinikolaidou
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Materials Science and TechnologyUniversity of CreteHeraklioGreece
  2. 2.Institute of Electronic Structure and LaserFoundation for Research & Technology HellasHeraklionGreece
  3. 3.Department of Hematology, School of MedicineUniversity of CreteHeraklioGreece
  4. 4.Department of Biology, School of MedicineNational & Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  5. 5.Institute of Molecular Biology & BiotechnologyFoundation for Research & Technology HellasHeraklionGreece

Personalised recommendations