Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-65n5b Total loading time: 0.221 Render date: 2021-06-18T09:59:13.238Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Characterizing the mechanical properties of tropoelastin protein scaffolds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2013

Audrey C. Ford
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Department of Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011 Department of Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011
Hans Machula
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011
Robert S. Kellar
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Department of Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011 Department of Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011
Brent A. Nelson
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Department of Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011
Get access

Abstract

This paper reports on mechanical characterization of electrospun tissue scaffolds formed from varying blends of collagen and human tropoelastin. The electrospun tropoelastin-based scaffolds have an open, porous structure conducive to cell attachment and have been shown to exhibit strong biocompatibility, but the mechanical character is not well known. Mechanical properties were tested for scaffolds consisting of 100% tropoelastin and 1:1 tropoelastin-collagen blends. The results showed that the materials exhibited a three order of magnitude change in the initial elastic modulus when tested dry vs. hydrated, with moduli of 21 MPa and 0.011 MPa respectively. Noncrosslinked and crosslinked tropoelastin scaffolds exhibited the same initial stiffness from 0 to 50% strain, and the noncrosslinked scaffolds exhibited no stiffness at strains >∼50%. The elastic modulus of a 1:1 tropoelastin-collagen blend was 50% higher than that of a pure tropoelastin scaffold. Finally, the 1:1 tropoelastin-collagen blend was five times stiffer from 0 to 50% strain when strained at five times the ASTM standard rate. By systematically varying protein composition and crosslinking, the results demonstrate how protein scaffolds might be manipulated as customized biomaterials, ensuring mechanical robustness and potentially improving biocompatibility through minimization of compliance mismatch with the surrounding tissue environment. Moreover, the demonstration of strain-rate dependent mechanical behavior has implications for mechanical design of tropoelastin-based tissue scaffolds.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Chen, P., McKittrick, J., and Meyers, M.A., Prog. in Mat. Sci. 57, 14921704 (2012).CrossRef
Bhat, S.V., Biomaterials, 2 nd ed. (Alpha Science International Ltd. Harrow, 2007) p. 1.Google Scholar
von Recum, A.F., Handbook of Biomaterials Evaluation, 2 nd ed. (Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor, 1999) p. 1.Google Scholar
Barnes, C.P., Sell, S.A., Boland, E.D., Simpson, D.G., and Bowlin, G.L.. Adv. Drug Del. Rev. 59, 14131433 (2007).CrossRef
Hollister, S.J., Maddox, R.D., and Taboas, J.M.. Biomat. 23, 40954103 (2002).CrossRef
Norman, J.J., and Desai, T.A., An. of Biomed. Engin. 34, 89101 (2005).CrossRef
McKenna, K.A., Hinds, M.T., Sarao, R.C., Wu, P.C., Maslen, C.L., Glanville, R.W., Gregory, D. B., and Gregory, K.W.. Acta Biomat. 8, 225233 (2012).CrossRef
Rnjak-Kovacina, J., Wise, S.G., Li, Z., Maitz, P.K.M., Young, C.J., Wang, Y., and Weiss, A.S., Acta Biomat. 8, 37143722 (2012).CrossRef
Li, M., Mondrinos, M.J., Gandhi, M.R., Ko, F.K., Weiss, A.S., Lelkes, P.I., Biomat. 26, 59996008 (2005).CrossRef
Lee, S.J., Yoo, J.J., Lim, G.L., Atala, A., and Stitzel, J.. J. Biomed. Mat. Res. A. 10, 9991008 (2007).CrossRef
Zhang, X., Thomas, V., Vohra, Y.K., J. of Mat. Sci. 21, 541549 (2009).
Wise, S.G., Byrom, M.J., Waterhouse, A., Bannon, P.G., Ng, M.K.C., and Weiss, A.S., Acta Biomat. 7.1, 295-303 (2011).CrossRef
Matthews, J.A., Wnek, G.E., Simpson, D.G., and Bowlin, G.L., Biomacro. 3, 232238 (2002).CrossRef
Daamen, W.F., Veerkamp, J.H., van Hest, J.C.M., and van Kuppevelt, T.H., Biomat. 28, 43784398 (2007).CrossRef
Woodhouse, K.A., Klement, P., Chen, V., Gorbet, M.B., Keeley, F.W., Stahl, R., et al. . Biomat. 25, 45434553 (2004).CrossRef
Bellingham, C.M., Lillie, M.A., Gosline, J.M., Wright, G.M., Starcher, B.C., Bailey, A.J., Woodhouse, K.A., and Keeley, F.W., Biopol. 70.4, 445-55 (2003).CrossRef
Goh, Y.F., Shakir, I., Hussain, R., J. of Mat. Sci. 48, 30273054 (2013).CrossRef
Sabrana, F., Lorusso, M., Canale, C., Bochicchio, B., Vassalli, M., J. of Biomech. 44, 21182122 (2011).CrossRef
Buttafoco, L., Kolkman, N.G., Engbers-Buijtenhuijs, P., Poot, A.A., Kijkstra, P.J., Vermes, I., and Feijen, J., Biomat. 27, 724734 (2006).CrossRef
Soliman, S., Pagliari, S., Rinaldi, A., Forte, G., Fiaccavento, R., Pagliari, F., Frenzese, O., Minieri, M., Di Nardo, P., Licoccia, S., and Traversa, E., Acta Biomat. 6, 12271237 (2010)CrossRef

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. 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.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Characterizing the mechanical properties of tropoelastin protein scaffolds
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Characterizing the mechanical properties of tropoelastin protein scaffolds
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Characterizing the mechanical properties of tropoelastin protein scaffolds
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *