Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:28:06.302Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Nanofibrous polymer scaffolds with designed pore structure for regeneration

from Part II - Porous scaffolds for regenerative medicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

By
Zhanpeng Zhang ,
Jeremy M. Holzwarth  and
Peter X. Ma
Edited by
Peter X. Ma
Zhanpeng Zhang
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Jeremy M. Holzwarth
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Peter X. Ma
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Peter X. Ma
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Organ failure and tissue loss are challenging health issues due to the widespread occurrence of injuries, the lack of donated organs for transplantation, and the limitations of conventional artificial implants. The field of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine emerged to solve these issues by providing biological alternatives that restore, maintain, or improve tissue function for harvested tissues and organs [1–5]. In a typical tissue engineering approach, cells are grown in a three-dimensional (3D) biodegradable scaffold, which, ideally, should perform the structural and biochemical functions of the natural extracellular matrix (ECM), providing cells with topological and chemical cues as well as mechanical support until the cell-produced ECM takes over. Therefore, there is a set of key characteristics that the scaffold should have. First, adequate space or porosity with high interconnectivity is needed throughout the 3D scaffold in order to allow cell adhesion, migration, proliferation, and differentiation into the desired cell phenotypes for new tissue formation [6, 7]. A porous structure not only defines the initial void space available for cell seeding/ingrowth and new tissue formation, but also determines the mass transport pathways. Second, appropriate surface architecture is critical since this is where the cell–matrix interactions occur. In connective tissues, such as bone, skin, ligament, and tendon, the ECM consists primarily of proteoglycans and fibrous proteins, such as collagen. The fibrous architecture of collagen contributes to the mechanical stabilities of the ECM, and plays a vital role in cell attachment, proliferation, and differentiation [8]. Type I collagen is the most abundant type of collagen and forms nanofiber bundles with fiber diameter ranging from 50 to 500 nm. A nanofibrous (NF) surface is desired to mimic the natural ECM and is found to be advantageous in improving cell attachment, migration, proliferation, and differentiation [9]. Therefore, polymeric scaffolds with porous structure at the micrometer scale and fibrous architecture at the nanometer dimension should be promising candidates for tissue regeneration. Although it is not the focus of this chapter, chemical and biological functionalization of scaffolds can enhance cell–biomaterial interactions [10].

Type
Chapter
Information
Biomaterials and Regenerative Medicine , pp. 91 - 103
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Langer, R. and Vacanti, J. P. 1993. Tissue engineering. Science, 260(5110), 920–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, P. X. 2004. Scaffolds for tissue fabrication. Mater. Today, 7(5), 30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, P. X. 2005. Tissue engineering. In Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology, 3rd edition, ed. Kroschwitz, J. I., Vol. 12. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 261–91.Google Scholar
Rice, M. A., Dodson, B. T., Arthur, J. A. and Anseth, K. S. 2005. Cell-based therapies and tissue engineering. Otolaryngol. Clinics North America, 38(2), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, P. X. 2008. Biomimetic materials for tissue engineering. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev., 60(2), 184–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, R. and Ma, P. X. 2000. Synthetic nano-fibrillar extracellular matrices with predesigned macroporous architectures. J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 52(2), 430–8.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, P. X. and Choi, J. W. 2001. Biodegradable polymer scaffolds with well-defined interconnected spherical pore network. Tissue Eng., 7(1), 23–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alberts, B., Johnson, A., Lewis, J. et al. 2002. Molecular Biology of the Cell. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Holzwarth, J. M. and Ma, P. X. 2011. Biomimetic nanofibrous scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 32(36), 9622–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, X., Holzwarth, J. M. and Ma, P. X. 2012. Functionalized synthetic biodegradable polymer scaffolds for tissue engineering. Macromol. Biosci., 12(7), 911–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitesides, G. M., Mathias, J. P. and Seto, C. T. 1991. Molecular self-assembly and nanochemistry: a chemical strategy for the synthesis of nanostructures. Science, 254(5036), 1312–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehn, J. M., 1993. Supramolecular chemistry. Science, 260(5115), 1762–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ball, P. 1994. Polymers made to measure. Nature, 367(6461), 323–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, S. 2003. Fabrication of novel biomaterials through molecular self-assembly. Nature Biotechnol., 21(10), 1171–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, S., Holmes, T., Lockshin, C. and Rich, A. 1993. Spontaneous assembly of a self-complementary oligopeptide to form a stable macroscopic membrane. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 90(8), 3334–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, S., Holmes, T. C., Dipersio, C. M. et al. 1995. Self-complementary oligopeptide matrices support mammalian cell attachment. Biomaterials, 16(18), 1385–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, T. C., de Lacalle, S., Su, X. et al. 2000. Extensive neurite outgrowth and active synapse formation on self-assembling peptide scaffolds. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 97(12), 6728–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartgerink, J. D., Beniash, E. and Stupp, S. I.. 2001. Self-assembly and mineralization of peptide-amphiphile nanofibers. Science, 294, 1684–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartgerink, J. D., Beniash, E. and Stupp, S. I. 2002. Peptide-amphiphile nanofibers: a versatile scaffold for the preparation of self-assembling materials. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 99(8), 5133–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, M., Nowak, A. P., Pochan, D. P. and Deming, T. J. 1999. Methylated mono- and diethyleneglycol functionalized polylysines: nonionic, alpha-helical, water-soluble polypeptides. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 121(51), 12210–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pochan, D. J., Pakstis, L., Ozbas, B., Nowak, A. P. and Deming, T. J. 2002. SANS and cryo-TEM study of self-assembled diblock copolypeptide hydrogels with rich nano- through microscale morphology. Macromolecules, 35(14), 5358–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, A. P., Breedveld, V., Pakstis, L. et al. 2002. Rapidly recovering hydrogel scaffolds from self-assembling diblock copolypeptide amphiphiles. Nature, 417(6887), 424–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, F., Muragan, R., Wang, S. and Ramakrishna, S. 2005. Electrospinning of nano/micro scale poly(l-lactic acid) aligned fibers and their potential in neural tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 26(15), 2603–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, D. and Chang, J. 2007. Patterning of electrospun fibers using electroconductive templates. Adv. Mater., 19(21), 3664–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, H., Hu, Y., Li, Y. et al. 2005. A facile technique to prepare biodegradable coaxial electrospun nanofibers for controlled release of bioactive agents. J. Controlled Release, 108(2–3), 237–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Y. Z., Wang, X., Feng, Y. et al. 2006. Coaxial electrospinning of (fluorescein isothiocyanate-conjugated bovine serum albumin)-encapsulated poly(ε-caprolactone) nanofibers for sustained release. Biomacromolecules, 7(4), 1049–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liao, I. C., Chew, S. Y. and Leong, K. W. 2006. Aligned core–shell nanofibers delivering bioactive proteins. Nanomedicine, 1(4), 465–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, H., Hu, Y., Zhao, P., Li, Y. and Zhu, K. 2006. Modulation of protein release from biodegradable core–shell structured fibers prepared by coaxial electrospinning. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B: Appl. Biomater., 79(1), 50–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sun, Z. C., Zussman, E., Yarin, A. L., Wendorff, J. H. and Greiner, A. 2003. Compound core–shell polymer nanofibers by co–electrospinning. Adv. Mater., 15(22), 1929–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, J. A., Wnek, G. E., Simpson, D. G. and Bowlin, G. L. 2002. Electrospinning of collagen nanofibers. Biomacromolecules, 3(2), 232–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhattarai, N., Edmondson, D., Veiseh, O., Matsen, F. A. and Zhang, M. 2005. Electrospun chitosan-based nanofibers and their cellular compatibility. Biomaterials, 26(31), 6176–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, K. E., Kang, H. K., Lee, S. J., Min, B. M. and Park, W. H. 2006. Biomimetic nanofibrous scaffolds: preparation and characterization of PGA/chitin blend nanofibers. Biomacromolecules, 7(2), 635–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, W. -J., Cooper, J. A., Mauck, R. L. and Tuan, R. S. 2006. Fabrication and characterization of six electrospun poly(α-hydroxy ester)-based fibrous scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Acta Biomater., 2(4), 377–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jin, H. -J., Fridrikh, S. V., Rutledge, G. C. and Kaplan, D. L. 2002. Electrospinning Bombyx mori silk with poly(ethylene oxide). Biomacromolecules, 3(6), 1233–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, M., Mondrinos, M. J., Chen, X. et al. 2006. Co-electrospun poly(lactide-co-glycolide), gelatin, and elastin blends for tissue engineering scaffolds. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A, 79(4), 963–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H. W., Kim, H. E. and Knowles, J. C. 2006. Production and potential of bioactive glass nanofibers as a next-generation biomaterial. Adv. Functional Mater., 16(12), 1529–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, C., Xiao, G., Jin, X., Sun, C. and Ma, P. X. 2010. Electrodeposition on nanofibrous polymer scaffolds: rapid mineralization, tunable calcium phosphate composition and topography. Adv. Functional Mater., 20(20), 3568–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuzlakoǧlu, K., Bolgen, N., Salgado, A. et al. 2005. Nano- and micro-fiber combined scaffolds: a new architecture for bone tissue engineering. J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med., 16(12), 1099–104.Google ScholarPubMed
Nam, J., Huang, J., Agarwal, S. and Lannutti, J. 2007. Improved cellular infiltration in electrospun fiber via engineered porosity. Tissue Eng., 13(9), 2249–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, R. and Ma, P. X. 2001. Processing of polymer scaffolds: phase separation. In Methods of Tissue Engineering, ed. Atala, A. and Lanza, R. P.San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 715–724.Google ScholarPubMed
Chen, V. J., Smith, L. A. and Ma, P. X. 2006. Bone regeneration on computer-designed nano-fibrous scaffolds. Biomaterials, 27(21), 3973–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, X. and Ma, P. X. 2009. Phase separation, pore structure, and properties of nanofibrous gelatin scaffolds. Biomaterials, 30(25), 4094–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, P. X. and Zhang, R. 1999. Synthetic nano-scale fibrous extracellular matrix. J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 46(1), 60–72.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, V. J. and Ma, P. X. 2004. Nano-fibrous poly(l-lactic acid) scaffolds with interconnected spherical macropores. Biomaterials, 25(11), 2065–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, V. J. and Ma, P. X. 2006. The effect of surface area on the degradation rate of nano-fibrous poly(l-lactic acid) foams. Biomaterials, 27(20), 3708–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, X. and Ma, P. X. 2010. The nanofibrous architecture of poly(l-lactic acid)-based functional copolymers. Biomaterials, 31(2), 259–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wei, G. and Ma, P. X. 2006. Macroporous and nanofibrous polymer scaffolds and polymer/bone-like apatite composite scaffolds generated by sugar spheres. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A, 78(2), 306–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, P., Hu, J. and Ma, P. X. 2009. The engineering of patient-specific, anatomically shaped, digits. Biomaterials, 30(14), 2735–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, S. W., Yang, H. S., Seo, S. W., Han, D. K. and Kim, B. S. 2008. Apatite-coated poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres as an injectable scaffold for bone tissue engineering. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A, 85(3), 747–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mercier, N. R., Costantino, H. R., Tracy, M. A. and Bonassar, L. J. 2005. Poly(lactide-co-glycolide) microspheres as a moldable scaffold for cartilage tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 26(14), 1945–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huss, F. R. M., Nyman, E., Bolin, J. S. C. and Kratz, G. 2010. Use of macroporous gelatine spheres as a biodegradable scaffold for guided tissue regeneration of healthy dermis in humans: an in vivo study. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesth. Surg., 63(5), 848–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawase, M., Michibayashi, N., Nakashima, Y. et al. 1997. Application of glutaraldehyde-crosslinked chitosan as a scaffold for hepatocyte attachment. Biol. Pharm. Bull., 20(6), 708–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, H. J. and Park, T. G. 2009. Injectable cellular aggregates prepared from biodegradable porous microspheres for adipose tissue engineering. Tissue Eng. Part A, 15(6), 1391–1400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Donnell, P. B. and McGinity, J. W. 1997. Preparation of microspheres by the solvent evaporation technique. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev., 28(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piirma, I. 1985. Colloids. In Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Engineering, 2nd edn., ed. Mark, H. F.Bikales, N. M., Overberger, C. G., Menges, G. and Kroschwitz, J. I.New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 125–30.Google Scholar
Liu, X., Jin, X. and Ma, P. X. 2011. Nanofibrous hollow microspheres self-assembled from star-shaped polymers as injectable cell carriers for knee repair. Nature Mater., 10(5), 398–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, J., Feng, K., Liu, X. and Ma, P. X. 2009. Chondrogenic and osteogenic differentiations of human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells on a nanofibrous scaffold with designed pore network. Biomaterials, 30(28), 5061–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sun, H., Feng, K., Hu, J. et al. 2010. Osteogenic differentiation of human amniotic fluid-derived stem cells induced by bone morphogenetic protein-7 and enhanced by nanofibrous scaffolds. Biomaterials, 31(6), 1133–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, L. A., Liu, X., Hu, J. and Ma, P. X. 2009. Enhancing osteogenic differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells by nanofibers. Tissue Eng.: Part A, 15(7), 1855–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christopherson, G. T., Song, H. and Mao, H. Q. 2008. The influence of fiber diameter of electrospun substrates on neural stem cell differentiation and proliferation. Biomaterials, 30(4), 556–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, J., Ma, H., Jin, X. et al. 2011. The effect of scaffold architecture on odontogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells. Biomaterials, 32(31), 7822–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feng, G., Jin, X., Hu, J. et al. 2011. Effects of hypoxias and scaffold architecture on rabbit mesenchymal stem cell differentiation towards a nucleus pulposus-like phenotype. Biomaterials, 32(32), 8182–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woo, K. M., Chen, V. J. and Ma, P. X. 2003. Nano-fibrous scaffolding architecture selectively enhances protein adsorption contributing to cell attachment. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A, 67A(2), 531–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, J., Liu, X. and Ma, P. X. 2008. Induction of osteoblast differentiation phenotype on poly(l-lactic acid) nanofibrous matrix. Biomaterials, 29(28), 3815–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×