Advertisement

Chondrogenic phenotype in responses to poly(ɛ-caprolactone) scaffolds catalyzed by bioenzymes: effects of surface topography and chemistry

  • Wasana Kosorn
  • Morakot Sakulsumbat
  • Tareerat Lertwimol
  • Boonlom Thavornyutikarn
  • Paweena Uppanan
  • Surapol Chantaweroad
  • Wanida JanvikulEmail author
Tissue Engineering Constructs and Cell Substrates Original Research
  • 46 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Tissue Engineering Constructs and Cell Substrates

Abstract

Biodegradable poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) has been increasingly investigated as a promising scaffolding material for articular cartilage tissue repair. However, its use can be limited due to its surface hydrophobicity and topography. In this study, 3D porous PCL scaffolds fabricated by a fused deposition modeling (FDM) machine were enzymatically hydrolyzed using two different biocatalysts, namely Novozyme®435 and Amano lipase PS, at varied treatment conditions in a pH 8.0 phosphate buffer solution. The improved surface topography and chemistry of the PCL scaffolds were anticipated to ultimately boost the growth of porcine articular chondrocytes and promote the chondrogenic phenotype during cell culture. Alterations in surface roughness, wettability, and chemistry of the PCL scaffolds after enzymatic treatment were thoroughly investigated using several techniques, e.g., SEM, AFM, contact angle and surface energy measurement, and XPS. With increasing enzyme content, incubation time, and incubation temperature, the surfaces of the PCL scaffolds became rougher and more hydrophilic. In addition, Novozyme®435 was found to have a higher enzyme activity than Amano lipase PS when both were used in the same enzymatic treatment condition. Interestingly, the enzymatic degradation process rarely induced the deterioration of compressive strength of the bulk porous PCL material and slightly reduced the molecular weight of the material at the filament surface. After 28 days of culture, both porous PCL scaffolds catalyzed by Novozyme®435 and Amano lipase PS could facilitate the chondrocytes to not only proliferate properly, but also function more effectively, compared with the non-modified porous PCL scaffold. Furthermore, the enzymatic treatments with 50 mg of Novozyme®435 at 25 °C from 10 min to 60 min were evidently proven to provide the optimally enhanced surface roughness and hydrophilicity most significantly favorable for induction of chondrogenic phenotype, indicated by the greatest expression level of cartilage-specific gene and the largest production of total glycosaminoglycans.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Professor Supapan Seraphin from professional authorship center (PAC), National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA), Thailand for useful discussions. This research was financially supported by the National Metal and Materials Technology Center (MTEC), Thailand (project code: MT-B-57-BMD-07-209-I).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10856_2019_6335_MOESM1_ESM.docx (4 mb)
Supplementary Information

References

  1. 1.
    Hunziker EB. Articular cartilage repair: basic science and clinical progress. A review of the current status and prospects. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2002;10:432–63.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Makris EA, Gomoll AH, Malizos KN, Hu JC, Athanasiou KA. Repair and tissue engineering techniques for articular cartilage. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2014;11:21–34.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Niemeyer P, Andereya S, Angele P, Ateschrang A, Aurich M, Baumann M, et al. Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) for cartilage defects of the knee: a guideline by the working group “Tissue Regeneration” of the German Society of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology (DGOU). Z Orthop Unf. 2013;151:38–47.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rönn K, Reischl N, Gautier E, Jacobi M. Current surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis. 2011;2011:1–9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’brien FJ. Biomaterials & scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Today. 2011;14:88–95.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Portocarrero G, Collins G, Livingston Arinzeh T. Challenges in cartilage tissue engineering. J Tissue Sci Eng. 2013;4:e120.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alvarez-Barreto JF, Shreve MC, Deangelis PL, Sikavitsas VI. Preparation of a functionally flexible, three-dimensional, biomimetic poly (L-lactic acid) scaffold with improved cell adhesion. Tissue Eng. 2007;13:1205–17.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Puppi D, Chiellini F, Piras A, Chiellini E. Polymeric materials for bone and cartilage repair. Prog Polym Sci. 2010;35:403–40.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patel H, Bonde M, Srinivasan G. Biodegradable polymer scaffold for tissue engineering. Trends Biomater Artif Organs. 2011;25:20–9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cuddihy MJ, Kotov NA. Poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) bone scaffolds with inverted colloidal crystal geometry. Tissue Eng Part A. 2008;14:1639–49.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guarino V, Causa F, Taddei P, Di Foggia M, Ciapetti G, Martini D, et al. Polylactic acid fibre-reinforced polycaprolactone scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2008;29:3662–70.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jung Y, Park MS, Lee JW, Kim YH, Kim S-H, Kim SH. Cartilage regeneration with highly-elastic three-dimensional scaffolds prepared from biodegradable poly (l-lactide-co-ɛ-caprolactone). Biomaterials. 2008;29:4630–6.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rohner D, Hutmacher DW, Cheng TK, Oberholzer M, Hammer B. In vivo efficacy of bone‐marrow‐coated polycaprolactone scaffolds for the reconstruction of orbital defects in the pig. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2003;66:574–80.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salerno A, Di Maio E, Iannace S, Netti P. Tailoring the pore structure of PCL scaffolds for tissue engineering prepared via gas foaming of multi-phase blends. J Porous Mater. 2012;19:181–8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiao Y-P, Cui F-Z. Surface modification of polyester biomaterials for tissue engineering. Biomed Mater. 2007;2:R24.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zanetti NC, Solursh M. Induction of chondrogenesis in limb mesenchymal cultures by disruption of the actin cytoskeleton. J Cell Biol. 1984;99:115–23.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Solursh M, Jensen KL, Reiter RS, Schmid TM, Linsenmayer TF. Environmental regulation of type X collagen production by cultures of limb mesenchyme, mesectoderm, and sternal chondrocytes. Dev Biol. 1986;117:90–101.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Archer CW, McDowell J, Bayliss MT, Stephens MD, Bentley G. Phenotypic modulation in sub-populations of human articular chondrocytes. Vitr J Cell Sci. 1990;97:361–71.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Varghese S, Theprungsirikul P, Sahani S, Hwang N, Yarema K, Elisseeff J. Glucosamine modulates chondrocyte proliferation, matrix synthesis, and gene expression. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2007;15:59–68.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Costa Martínez E, Escobar Ivirico JL, Muñoz Criado I, Gómez Ribelles JL, Monleón Pradas M, Salmerón Sánchez M. Effect of poly(L-lactide) surface topography on the morphology of in vitro cultured human articular chondrocytes. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007;18:1627–32.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Le X, Poinern GEJ, Ali N, Berry CM, Fawcett D. Engineering a biocompatible scaffold with either micrometre or nanometre scale surface topography for promoting protein adsorption and cellular response. Int J Biomater. 2013;2013:1–16.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheng Z, Teoh S-H. Surface modification of ultra thin poly (ε-caprolactone) films using acrylic acid and collagen. Biomaterials. 2004;25:1991–2001.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park JS, Kim J-M, Lee SJ, Lee SG, Jeong Y-K, Kim SE, et al. Surface hydrolysis of fibrous poly (ε-caprolactone) scaffolds for enhanced osteoblast adhesion and proliferation. Macromol Res. 2007;15:424–9.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morent R, De Geyter N, Desmet T, Dubruel P, Leys C. Plasma surface modification of biodegradable polymers: a review. Plasma Process Polym. 2011;8:171–90.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gümüşderelioğlu M, Kaya FB, Beşkardeş IG. Comparison of epithelial and fibroblastic cell behavior on nano/micro-topographic PCL membranes produced by crystallinity control. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2011;358:444–53.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Janvikul W, Uppanan P, Thavornyutikarn B, Kosorn W, Kaewkong P. Effects of surface topography, hydrophilicity and chemistry of surface-treated PCL scaffolds on chondrocyte infiltration and ECM production. Procedia Eng. 2013;59:158–65.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Uppanan P, Thavornyutikarn B, Kosorn W, Kaewkong P, Janvikul W. Enhancement of chondrocyte proliferation, distribution, and functions within polycaprolactone scaffolds by surface treatments. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2015;103:2322–32.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kosorn W, Sakulsumbat M, Uppanan P, Kaewkong P, Chantaweroad S, Jitsaard J, Sitthisseripratip K, Janvikul W. PCL/PHBV blended three dimensional scaffolds fabricated by fused deposition modeling and responses of chondrocytes to the scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2017;105:1141–50.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kulkarni A, Reiche J, Hartmann J, Kratz K, Lendlein A. Selective enzymatic degradation of poly (ε-caprolactone) containing multiblock copolymers. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2008;68:46–56.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peng H, Ling J, Liu J, Zhu N, Ni X, Shen Z. Controlled enzymatic degradation of poly (ɛ-caprolactone)-based copolymers in the presence of porcine pancreatic lipase. Polym Degrad Stab. 2010;95:643–50.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang Y, Jiang N, Gan Z. In situ evaluation of cell cultivation on dynamically changed poly (ɛ-caprolactone) film caused by enzymatic degradation. Sci China Chem. 2011;54:369–74.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Banerjee A, Chatterjee K, Madras G. Enzymatic degradation of polymers: a brief review. Mater Sci Technol. 2014;30:567–73.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gan Z, Liang Q, Zhang J, Jing X. Enzymatic degradation of poly (ε-caprolactone) film in phosphate buffer solution containing lipases. Polym Degrad Stab. 1997;56:209–13.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Blackwell C, Haernvall K, Guebitz G, Groombridge M, Gonzales D, Khosravi E. Enzymatic degradation of star poly (ε-caprolactone) with different central units. Polymers. 2018;10:1266.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Banerjee A, Chatterjee K, Madras G. Enzymatic degradation of polycaprolactone–gelatin blend. Mater Res Express. 2015;2:045303.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zein I, Hutmacher DW, Tan KC, Teoh SH. Fused deposition modeling of novel scaffold architectures for tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials. 2002;23:1169–85.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thavornyutikarn B, Chantarapanich N, Sitthiseripratip K, Thouas GA, Chen Q. Bone tissue engineering scaffolding: computer-aided scaffolding techniques. Prog Biomater. 2014;3:61–102.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Owens DK, Wendt RC. Estimation of the surface free energy of polymers. J Appl Polym Sci. 1969;13:1741–7.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Żenkiewicz M. Methods for the calculation of surface free energy of solids. J Achiev Mater Manuf Eng. 2007;24:137–45.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zeng L, Yao Y, Wang D-a, Chen X. Effect of microcavitary alginate hydrogel with different pore sizes on chondrocyte culture for cartilage tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C. 2014;34:168–75.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cortese B, Riehle MO, D’Amone S, Gigli G. Influence of variable substrate geometry on wettability and cellular responses. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2013;394:582–9.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Balmayor ER, Tuzlakoglu K, Marques AP, Azevedo HS, Reis RL. A novel enzymatically-mediated drug delivery carrier for bone tissue engineering applications: combining biodegradable starch-based microparticles and differentiation agents. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2008;19:1617–23.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Boyan BD, Hummert TW, Dean DD, Schwartz Z. Role of material surfaces in regulating bone and cartilage cell response. Biomaterials. 1996;17:137–46.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Noriega SE, Hasanova GI, Schneider MJ, Larsen GF, Subramanian A. Effect of fiber diameter on the spreading, proliferation and differentiation of chondrocytes on electrospun chitosan matrices. Cells Tissues Organs. 2012;195:207–21.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Metal and Materials Technology CenterKlong LuangThailand

Personalised recommendations