Cargando…
A Comparison of Tissue Engineering Scaffolds Incorporated with Manuka Honey of Varying UMF
Purpose. Manuka honey (MH) is an antibacterial agent specific to the islands of New Zealand containing both hydrogen peroxide and a Unique Manuka Factor (UMF). Although the antibacterial properties of MH have been studied, the effect of varying UMF of MH incorporated into tissue engineered scaffolds...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5343224/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28326322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/4843065 |
_version_ | 1782513323328143360 |
---|---|
author | Hixon, Katherine R. Lu, Tracy McBride-Gagyi, Sarah H. Janowiak, Blythe E. Sell, Scott A. |
author_facet | Hixon, Katherine R. Lu, Tracy McBride-Gagyi, Sarah H. Janowiak, Blythe E. Sell, Scott A. |
author_sort | Hixon, Katherine R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Purpose. Manuka honey (MH) is an antibacterial agent specific to the islands of New Zealand containing both hydrogen peroxide and a Unique Manuka Factor (UMF). Although the antibacterial properties of MH have been studied, the effect of varying UMF of MH incorporated into tissue engineered scaffolds have not. Therefore, this study was designed to compare silk fibroin cryogels and electrospun scaffolds incorporated with a 5% MH concentration of various UMF. Methods. Characteristics such as porosity, bacterial clearance and adhesion, and cytotoxicity were compared. Results. Pore diameters for all cryogels were between 51 and 60 µm, while electrospun scaffolds were 10 µm. Cryogels of varying UMF displayed clearance of approximately 0.16 cm for E. coli and S. aureus. In comparison, the electrospun scaffolds clearance ranged between 0.5 and 1 cm. A glucose release of 0.5 mg/mL was observed for the first 24 hours by all scaffolds, regardless of UMF. With respect to cytotoxicity, neither scaffold caused the cell number to drop below 20,000. Conclusions. Overall, when comparing the effects of the various UMF within the two scaffolds, no significant differences were observed. This suggests that the fabricated scaffolds in this study displayed similar bacterial effects regardless of the UMF value. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5343224 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Hindawi Publishing Corporation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53432242017-03-21 A Comparison of Tissue Engineering Scaffolds Incorporated with Manuka Honey of Varying UMF Hixon, Katherine R. Lu, Tracy McBride-Gagyi, Sarah H. Janowiak, Blythe E. Sell, Scott A. Biomed Res Int Research Article Purpose. Manuka honey (MH) is an antibacterial agent specific to the islands of New Zealand containing both hydrogen peroxide and a Unique Manuka Factor (UMF). Although the antibacterial properties of MH have been studied, the effect of varying UMF of MH incorporated into tissue engineered scaffolds have not. Therefore, this study was designed to compare silk fibroin cryogels and electrospun scaffolds incorporated with a 5% MH concentration of various UMF. Methods. Characteristics such as porosity, bacterial clearance and adhesion, and cytotoxicity were compared. Results. Pore diameters for all cryogels were between 51 and 60 µm, while electrospun scaffolds were 10 µm. Cryogels of varying UMF displayed clearance of approximately 0.16 cm for E. coli and S. aureus. In comparison, the electrospun scaffolds clearance ranged between 0.5 and 1 cm. A glucose release of 0.5 mg/mL was observed for the first 24 hours by all scaffolds, regardless of UMF. With respect to cytotoxicity, neither scaffold caused the cell number to drop below 20,000. Conclusions. Overall, when comparing the effects of the various UMF within the two scaffolds, no significant differences were observed. This suggests that the fabricated scaffolds in this study displayed similar bacterial effects regardless of the UMF value. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2017 2017-02-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5343224/ /pubmed/28326322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/4843065 Text en Copyright © 2017 Katherine R. Hixon et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Hixon, Katherine R. Lu, Tracy McBride-Gagyi, Sarah H. Janowiak, Blythe E. Sell, Scott A. A Comparison of Tissue Engineering Scaffolds Incorporated with Manuka Honey of Varying UMF |
title | A Comparison of Tissue Engineering Scaffolds Incorporated with Manuka Honey of Varying UMF |
title_full | A Comparison of Tissue Engineering Scaffolds Incorporated with Manuka Honey of Varying UMF |
title_fullStr | A Comparison of Tissue Engineering Scaffolds Incorporated with Manuka Honey of Varying UMF |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Tissue Engineering Scaffolds Incorporated with Manuka Honey of Varying UMF |
title_short | A Comparison of Tissue Engineering Scaffolds Incorporated with Manuka Honey of Varying UMF |
title_sort | comparison of tissue engineering scaffolds incorporated with manuka honey of varying umf |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5343224/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28326322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/4843065 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hixonkatheriner acomparisonoftissueengineeringscaffoldsincorporatedwithmanukahoneyofvaryingumf AT lutracy acomparisonoftissueengineeringscaffoldsincorporatedwithmanukahoneyofvaryingumf AT mcbridegagyisarahh acomparisonoftissueengineeringscaffoldsincorporatedwithmanukahoneyofvaryingumf AT janowiakblythee acomparisonoftissueengineeringscaffoldsincorporatedwithmanukahoneyofvaryingumf AT sellscotta acomparisonoftissueengineeringscaffoldsincorporatedwithmanukahoneyofvaryingumf AT hixonkatheriner comparisonoftissueengineeringscaffoldsincorporatedwithmanukahoneyofvaryingumf AT lutracy comparisonoftissueengineeringscaffoldsincorporatedwithmanukahoneyofvaryingumf AT mcbridegagyisarahh comparisonoftissueengineeringscaffoldsincorporatedwithmanukahoneyofvaryingumf AT janowiakblythee comparisonoftissueengineeringscaffoldsincorporatedwithmanukahoneyofvaryingumf AT sellscotta comparisonoftissueengineeringscaffoldsincorporatedwithmanukahoneyofvaryingumf |