Please note, due to essential maintenance online transactions will not be possible between 02:30 and 04:00 BST, on Tuesday 17th September 2019 (22:30-00:00 EDT, 17 Sep, 2019). We apologise for any inconvenience.
To send 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 sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.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 sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.
This study compared the effect of gelatin- and chitosan-based scaffolds on osteoblast biomineralization. These scaffolds have been modified using methacrylate and laponite nanosilicates to improve their mechanical strength and support osteoblast function. Scaffold materials were prepared to have the same compressive strength (14–15 MPa) such that differences in cell response would be isolated to differences in biopolymer chemistry. The materials were tested for rheological properties to optimize the bio-ink for successful 3D printing using a robocast-assisted deposition system. Osteoblasts were cultured on the surface of 3D-printed methacrylated chitosan-laponite (MAC-Lp), methacrylated gelatin-laponite (MAG-Lp), MAC, and MAG scaffolds. MAC-Lp scaffolds showed increased cell viability, cell growth, and biomineral formation as compared to MAG-Lp scaffolds. FTIR results showed the presence of higher biomineral phosphate and extracellular matrix (ECM) collagen-like amide formation on MAC-Lp scaffolds as compared to MAG-Lp scaffolds. MAC-Lp scaffolds showed increased density of ECM-like tissue from SEM analysis, stained mineral nodules from Alizarin staining, and the existence of Ca–P species evident by X-ray absorbance near edge structure analysis. In conclusion, MAC-Lp scaffolds enhanced osteoblast growth and biomineral formation as compared to MAG-Lp scaffolds.
Patients and clinics are constantly searching for donors. The increasing gap between supply and demand in most countries shows beyond doubt that the current systems are unable to attract a sufficient number of donors. The first suggestion for a solution is always the same: let’s pay. However, payment for body material is, at least in Europe, generally rejected on ethical grounds. Several alternative modes of compensation are currently applied. Still, the efforts made by clinics and/or governments to increase the donor pool are fairly limited. In order to curb commercialization, a number of countries do not allow clinics to take their own initiatives to attract donors. This entails that the task lies completely with the government. However, compared to the campaigns for blood and organs, governments show very little interest in organizing widespread awareness campaigns for gamete donation. Moreover, the rare campaigns that are set up are so little advertised that they might as well not be done. Only seldom are special organizations (such as the National Gamete Donation Trust in the UK) set up to alleviate the shortage of gamete donors. The most likely explanation for this reticence is that most governments and responsible institutions are not convinced of the moral status of the procedure and as a consequence do not want to associate themselves with this topic.
The practice of gamete donation is a complex system in which multiple ethical rules, legal restrictions and medical facts intermingle. Things are further complicated by the fact that there are many different types of donors. The different categories are based on dimensions with ethical, social and psychological consequences: gamete type (oocyte and sperm donors), anonymity (known, identifiable and anonymous donors) and remuneration (volunteer, commercial and patient donors) (Purewal and van den Akker, 2009). Given space restrictions, we will focus on the major findings and trends.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.