, Volume 71, Issue 1, pp 287–303 | Cite as

Culturing melanocytes and fibroblasts within three-dimensional macroporous PDMS scaffolds: towards skin dressing material

  • Neelima Varshney
  • Ajay Kumar Sahi
  • Kiran Yellappa Vajanthri
  • Suruchi Poddar
  • Chelladurai Karthikeyan Balavigneswaran
  • Arumugam Prabhakar
  • Vivek Rao
  • Sanjeev Kumar MahtoEmail author
Original Article


In the present study, we propose a platform for topical wound dressing material using a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) scaffold in order to enhance the skin healing process. In vitro co-culture assessment of epidermal-origin mouse B16-F10 melanocyte cells and mouse L929 fibroblast cells in three-dimensional polymeric scaffolds has been carried out towards developing bio-stable, interconnected, highly macroporous, PDMS based tissue-engineered scaffolds, using the salt leaching method. To determine a suitable ratio of salt to PDMS pre-polymer in the scaffold, two different samples with ratios 2:1 and 3:1 [w/w], were fabricated. Effective pore sizes of both scaffolds were observed to lie in the desirable range of 152–165 μm. In addition, scaffolds were pre-coated with collagen and investigated as a podium for culturing the chosen cells (fibroblast and melanocyte cells). Experimental results demonstrate not only a high proliferative potential of the skin tissue-specific cells within the fabricated PDMS based scaffolds but also confirm the presence of several other essential attributes such as high interconnectivity, optimum porosity, excellent mechanical strength, gaseous permeability, promising cell compatibility, water absorption capability and desired surface wettability. Therefore, scaffolds facilitate a high degree of cellular adhesion while providing a microenvironment necessary for optimal cellular infiltration and viability. Thus, the outcomes suggest that PDMS based macroporous scaffold can be used as a potential candidate for skin dressing material. In addition, the fabricated PDMS scaffolds may also be exploited for a plethora of other applications in tissue engineering and drug delivery.


PDMS Scaffolds Skin tissue Cytocompatibility Co-culture Mechanical Strength 



This work was financially supported by a DST-INSPIRE (DST/INSPIRE/04/2013/000836) research grant from the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. The authors would also like to thank Institute Research Project (IRP) scheme for individual faculty provided by Indian Institute of Technology (Banaras Hindu University) for the development of state-of-the-art facilities.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Annabi N, Nichol JW, Zhong X et al (2010) Controlling the porosity and microarchitecture of hydrogels for tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 16:371–383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aucoin L, Griffith CM, Pleizier G et al (2002) Interactions of corneal epithelial cells and surfaces modified with cell adhesion peptide combinations. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 13:447–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bélanger MC, Marois Y (2001) Hemocompatibility, biocompatibility, inflammatory and in vivo studies of primary reference materials low-density polyethylene and polydimethylsiloxane: a review. J Biomed Mater Res 58:467–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhardwaj N, Chouhan D, Mandal BB (2018) 14. 3D functional scaffolds for skin tissue engineering. In: Deng Y, Kuiper J (eds) Functional 3D tissue engineering scaffolds. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp 345–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boateng JS, Matthews KH, Stevens HNE, Eccleston GM (2008) Wound healing dressings and drug delivery systems: a review. J Pharm Sci 97:2892–2923. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosworth L, Downes S (2011) Electrospinning for tissue regeneration. Elsevier, AmsterdamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bružauskaitė I, Bironaitė D, Bagdonas E, Bernotienė E (2016) Scaffolds and cells for tissue regeneration: different scaffold pore sizes-different cell effects. Cytotechnology 68:355–369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bucholz RW, Carlton A, Holmes RE (1987) Hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphate bone graft substitutes. Orthop Clin North Am 18:323–334Google Scholar
  9. Caplin JD, Granados NG, James MR et al (2015) Microfluidic organ-on-a-chip technology for advancement of drug development and toxicology. Adv Healthc Mater 4:1426–1450. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chan YY, Kim KH, Cheah SH (2011) Inhibitory effects of Sargassum polycystum on tyrosinase activity and melanin formation in B16F10 murine melanoma cells. J Ethnopharmacol 137:1183–1188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chang CP, Hsu CC (2006) The formation and water content of synthetic fiber growing media. Mater Sci Eng A 433:100–103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunha ES, Kawahara R, Kadowaki MK et al (2012) Melanogenesis stimulation in B16-F10 melanoma cells induces cell cycle alterations, increased ROS levels and a differential expression of proteins as revealed by proteomic analysis. Exp Cell Res 318:1913–1925. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Díaz Lantada A, Alarcón Iniesta H, Pareja Sánchez B, García-Ruíz JP (2014) Free-form rapid prototyped porous PDMS scaffolds incorporating growth factors promote chondrogenesis. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2014:1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feng J, Wen G, Huang W et al (2006) Influence of oxygen plasma treatment on poly(ether sulphone) films. Polym Degrad Stab 91:12–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heise U, Osborn JF, Duwe F (1990) Hydroxyapatite ceramic as a bone substitute. Int Orthop 14:329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jeong YG, Lee JS, Shim JK, Hur W (2016) A scaffold-free surface culture of B16F10 murine melanoma cells based on magnetic levitation. Cytotechnology 68:2323–2334. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joshi VS, Lei NY, Walthers CM et al (2013) Macroporosity enhances vascularization of electrospun scaffolds. J Surg Res 183:18–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khorasani MT, Mirzadeh H (2004) Laser surface modification of silicone rubber to reduce platelet adhesion in vitro. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 15:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee JH, Park JW, Lee HB (1991) Cell adhesion and growth on polymer surfaces with hydroxyl groups prepared by water vapour plasma treatment. Biomaterials 12:443–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee E, Zhang H, Jackson JK et al (2016) Janus films with stretchable and waterproof properties for wound care and drug delivery applications. RSC Adv 6:79900–79909. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li C, Guan G, Reif R et al (2012) Determining elastic properties of skin by measuring surface waves from an impulse mechanical stimulus using phase-sensitive optical coherence tomography. J R Soc Interface 9:831–841. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li J, Liu X, Crook JM, Wallace GG (2017) Development of a porous 3D graphene-PDMS scaffold for improved osseointegration. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 159:386–393. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lien S-M, Ko L-Y, Huang T-J (2009) Effect of pore size on ECM secretion and cell growth in gelatin scaffold for articular cartilage tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 5:670–679. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maganaris CN, Paul JP (1999) In vivo human tendon mechanical properties. J Physiol 521:307–313. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mahto SK, Tenenbaum-Katan J, Greenblum A et al (2014) Microfluidic shear stress-regulated surfactant secretion in alveolar epithelial type II cells in vitro. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 306:L672–L683. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marom A, Mahto SK, Shor E et al (2015) Microfluidic chip for site-specific neuropharmacological treatment and activity probing of 3D neuronal “Optonet” cultures. Adv Healthc Mater 4:1478–1483, 1422.
  27. Merenda A, des Ligneris E, Sears K et al (2016) Assessing the temporal stability of surface functional groups introduced by plasma treatments on the outer shells of carbon nanotubes. Sci Rep 6:31565. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Merkel TC, Bondar VI, Nagai K et al (2000) Gas sorption, diffusion, and permeation in poly(dimethylsiloxane). J Polym Sci Part B Polym Phys 38:415–434.<415::AID-POLB8>3.0.CO;2-Z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mir M, Ali MN, Barakullah A et al (2018) Synthetic polymeric biomaterials for wound healing: a review. Prog Biomater 7:1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mou L, Jiang X (2017) Materials for microfluidic immunoassays: a review. Adv Healthc Mater. Google Scholar
  31. Nicholas MN, Jeschke MG, Amini-Nik S (2016) Methodologies in creating skin substitutes. Cell Mol Life Sci CMLS 73:3453–3472. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nunes CR, Simske SJ, Sachdeva R, Wolford LM (1997) Long-term ingrowth and apposition of porous hydroxylapatite implants. J Biomed Mater Res 36:560–563.<560::AID-JBM15>3.0.CO;2-E CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pawlaczyk M, Lelonkiewicz M, Wieczorowski M (2013) Age-dependent biomechanical properties of the skin. Adv Dermatol Allergol Dermatol Alergol 30:302–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pedraza E, Brady A-C, Fraker CA et al (2013a) Macroporous three-dimensional PDMS scaffolds for extrahepatic islet transplantation. Cell Transpl 22:1123–1135. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pedraza E, Brady A-C, Fraker CA, Stabler CL (2013b) Synthesis of macroporous poly(dimethylsiloxane) scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 24:1041–1056. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peterson LH, Jensen RE, Parnell J (1960) Mechanical properties of arteries in vivo. Circ Res 8:622–639. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Phipps MC, Clem WC, Grunda JM et al (2012) Increasing the pore sizes of bone-mimetic electrospun scaffolds comprised of polycaprolactone, collagen I and hydroxyapatite to enhance cell infiltration. Biomaterials 33:524–534. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sunami H, Yokota I, Igarashi Y (2014) Influence of the pattern size of micropatterned scaffolds on cell morphology, proliferation, migration and F-actin expression. Biomater Sci 2:399–409. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Teixeira S, Ferraz MP, Monteiro FJ (2008) Biocompatibility of highly macroporous ceramic scaffolds: cell adhesion and morphology studies. J Mater Sci Mater Med 19:855–859. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vig K, Chaudhari A, Tripathi S et al (2017) Advances in skin regeneration using tissue engineering. Int J Mol Sci 18:789. Google Scholar
  41. Vogel HG (1994) Mechanical measurements of skin. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 185:39–43Google Scholar
  42. Waddell EA, Shreeves S, Carrell H et al (2008) Surface modification of Sylgard 184 polydimethylsiloxane by 254 nm excimer radiation and characterization by contact angle goniometry, infrared spectroscopy, atomic force and scanning electron microscopy. Appl Surf Sci 254:5314–5318. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wen P, Gao J, Zhang Y et al (2011) Fabrication of chitosan scaffolds with tunable porous orientation structure for tissue engineering. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 22:19–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yilgör E, Yilgör I (2014) Silicone containing copolymers: synthesis, properties and applications. Prog Polym Sci 39:1165–1195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yu D, Zhao Y, Li H et al (2013) Preparation and evaluation of hydrophobic surfaces of polyacrylate-polydimethylsiloxane copolymers for anti-icing. Prog Org Coat 76:1435–1444. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zargar R, Nourmohammadi J, Amoabediny G (2016) Preparation, characterization, and silanization of 3D microporous PDMS structure with properly sized pores for endothelial cell culture: application of 3D microporous PDMS structure. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 63:190–199. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang Y, Ishida M, Kazoe Y et al (2009) Water-vapor permeability control of PDMS by the dispersion of collagen powder. IEEJ Trans Electr Electron Eng 4:442–449. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhu D, Handschuh-Wang S, Zhou X (2017) Recent progress in fabrication and application of polydimethylsiloxane sponges. J Mater Chem A 5:16467–16497. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neelima Varshney
    • 1
  • Ajay Kumar Sahi
    • 1
  • Kiran Yellappa Vajanthri
    • 1
  • Suruchi Poddar
    • 1
  • Chelladurai Karthikeyan Balavigneswaran
    • 1
  • Arumugam Prabhakar
    • 2
    • 3
  • Vivek Rao
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sanjeev Kumar Mahto
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Tissue Engineering and Biomicrofluidics Laboratory, School of Biomedical EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology (Banaras Hindu University)VaranasiIndia
  2. 2.Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR)New DelhiIndia
  3. 3.CSIR-Institute of Genomics and Integrative BiologyNew DelhiIndia
  4. 4.Centre for Advanced Biomaterials and Tissue EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology (Banaras Hindu University)VaranasiIndia

Personalised recommendations