Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019;10(4):171-182.

Morphological and Molecular Analysis of Osteoblasts Differentiated from Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Polycaprolactone/Magnesium Oxide/Graphene Oxide Scaffold

Affiliations

Morphological and Molecular Analysis of Osteoblasts Differentiated from Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Polycaprolactone/Magnesium Oxide/Graphene Oxide Scaffold

Z Niknam et al. Int J Organ Transplant Med. 2019.

Abstract

Background: The loss or dysfunction of bone tissue that observed after bone tumor resections and severe nonunion fractures afflicts 200 million people worldwide. Bone tissue engineering is a promising approach to repair osteoporotic fractures.

Objective: In this paper, polycaprolactone (PCL)/magnesium oxide (MgO)/graphene oxide (GO) nanofibrous scaffold was fabricated by electrospining method, and its biocompatibility and osteogenic differentiation of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) on this scaffold were evaluated and compared with pure PCL nanofibrous scaffold.

Methods: SEM analysis, DAPI staining and MTT assay were used to evaluation biocompatibility of PCL/MgO/GO composite scaffold. In addition by ALP assay and proteomic approach, osteostimulatory effect of electrospun composite scaffold was investigated and the expression level of osteogenic markers including Runt-related transcription factor cbfa1/runx2 (runx2), collagen type I (Col1a1) and osteopontin (OPN) in MSCs seeded on PCL/MgO/GO composite scaffold was determined and compared with pure PCL scaffold. Then, RT-PCR technique was used to validate the level expression of these genes.

Results: The obtained results showed that adhesion, viability and ALP activity of MSCs on PCL/MgO/GO scaffold considerably enhanced compared with pure PCL. As well as proteomic and real-time analysis illustrated the expression of osteogenic markers including runx2, Col1a1 and OPN increased (>2-fold) in cells seeded on PCL/MgO/GO composite scaffold.

Conclusion: It was concluded that MgO and GO nanoparticles could improve the biocompatibility of PCL scaffold and enhance the osteogenic differentiation of MSCs.

Keywords: Bone tissue engineering; Mesenchymal stem cells; Osteoblast; Proteomics; Scaffold.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Surface morphological and constructional images of nanofibers by SEM: a) PCL, b) PCL/MgO/GO. Original behaviors of MSCs on nanofibrous scaffolds; SEM images after 1 day of culture: c) PCL, d) PCL/MgO/GO. Fluorescence microscope images for DAPI staining of MSCs cultured for 1 day on nanofibrous scaffolds: e) PCL, f) PCL/MgO/GO
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flowcytometry analysis of MSCs labeled with a) CD90, b) CD44, and c) CD73 conjugated to FITC
Figure 3
Figure 3
Viability percentage of MSCs on PCL and PCL/MgO/GO scaffolds on the 1st, 4th, and 7th days (*p<0.05)
Figure 4
Figure 4
ALP activity of MSCs grown on PCL and PCL/MgO/GO (0.5%) nanofibrous scaffolds on the 7th and 14th days (*p<0.05)
Figure 5
Figure 5
2DE gel images of a) MSCs on PCL scaffold, and b) MSCs on PCL/MgO/GO scaffold
Figure 6
Figure 6
Images of protein spots: runx2 a) PCL; b) PCL/MgO/GO, Col1a1; c) PCL; d) PCL/MgO/GO, OPN; e) PCL; and f) PCL/MgO/GO
Figure 7
Figure 7
Targeted proteins have more than 2-fold up-regulation: a) runx2, b) Col1a1, c) OPN in PCL/MgO/GO scaffold compared with pure PCL
Figure 8
Figure 8
Various mRNA expression changes of MSCs in response to PCL and PCL/MgO/GO scaffolds on a) 7th day and b) 14th day (*p<0.05)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Stevens MM. Biomaterials for bone tissue engineering. Materials today. 2008;11:18–25.
    1. Roseti L, Parisi V, Petretta M, et al. Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering: State of the art and new perspectives. Materials Science and Engineering Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2017;78:1246–62. - PubMed
    1. Xu W, Liao X, Li B, Li T. Biomaterials and bone tissue engineering. Bioelectronics and Bioinformatics (ISBB), 2011. International Symposium on bioelectronics and bioinformatics 2011. :224–7.
    1. Bouët G, Marchat D, Cruel M, et al. In vitro three-dimensional bone tissue models: from cells to controlled and dynamic environment. Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews. 2014;21:133–56. - PubMed
    1. Navarro M, Michiardi A, Castano O, Planell J. Biomaterials in orthopaedics. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 2008;5:1137–58. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources