Cargando…

A Comparison between Ultrasonic Bath and Direct Sonicator on Osteochondral Tissue Decellularization

BACKGROUND: Decellularization techniques have been widely used in tissue engineering recently. However, applying these methods which are based on removing cells and maintaining the extracellular matrix (ECM) encountered some difficulties for dense tissues such as articular cartilage. Together with c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Forouzesh, Farin, Rabbani, Mohsen, Bonakdar, Shahin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6839442/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31737551
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmss.JMSS_64_18
_version_ 1783467422420828160
author Forouzesh, Farin
Rabbani, Mohsen
Bonakdar, Shahin
author_facet Forouzesh, Farin
Rabbani, Mohsen
Bonakdar, Shahin
author_sort Forouzesh, Farin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Decellularization techniques have been widely used in tissue engineering recently. However, applying these methods which are based on removing cells and maintaining the extracellular matrix (ECM) encountered some difficulties for dense tissues such as articular cartilage. Together with chemical agents, using physical methods is suggested to help decellularization of tissues. METHODS: In this study, to improve decellularization of articular cartilage, the effects of direct and indirect ultrasonic waves as a physical method in addition to sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) as chemical agents with 0.1% and 1% (w/v) concentrations were examined. Decellularization process was evaluated by nucleus staining with hematoxylin and eosin (H and E) and by staining glycosaminoglycans (GAG) and collagen. RESULTS: The H and E staining indicated that 1% (w/v) SDS in addition to ultrasonic bath for 5 h significantly decreased the cell nucleus residue to lacuna ratio by 66%. Scanning electron microscopy showed that using direct sonication caused formation of micropores on the surface of the sample which results in better penetration of decellularization material and better cell attachment after decellularization. Alcian Blue and Picrosirius Red staining represented GAG and collagen, respectively, which maintained in ECM structure after decellularization by ultrasonic bath and direct sonicator. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonic bath can help better penetration of the decellularization material into the cartilage. This improves the speed of the decellularization process while it has no significant defect on the structure of the tissue.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6839442
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68394422019-11-15 A Comparison between Ultrasonic Bath and Direct Sonicator on Osteochondral Tissue Decellularization Forouzesh, Farin Rabbani, Mohsen Bonakdar, Shahin J Med Signals Sens Original Article BACKGROUND: Decellularization techniques have been widely used in tissue engineering recently. However, applying these methods which are based on removing cells and maintaining the extracellular matrix (ECM) encountered some difficulties for dense tissues such as articular cartilage. Together with chemical agents, using physical methods is suggested to help decellularization of tissues. METHODS: In this study, to improve decellularization of articular cartilage, the effects of direct and indirect ultrasonic waves as a physical method in addition to sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) as chemical agents with 0.1% and 1% (w/v) concentrations were examined. Decellularization process was evaluated by nucleus staining with hematoxylin and eosin (H and E) and by staining glycosaminoglycans (GAG) and collagen. RESULTS: The H and E staining indicated that 1% (w/v) SDS in addition to ultrasonic bath for 5 h significantly decreased the cell nucleus residue to lacuna ratio by 66%. Scanning electron microscopy showed that using direct sonication caused formation of micropores on the surface of the sample which results in better penetration of decellularization material and better cell attachment after decellularization. Alcian Blue and Picrosirius Red staining represented GAG and collagen, respectively, which maintained in ECM structure after decellularization by ultrasonic bath and direct sonicator. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonic bath can help better penetration of the decellularization material into the cartilage. This improves the speed of the decellularization process while it has no significant defect on the structure of the tissue. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019-10-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6839442/ /pubmed/31737551 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmss.JMSS_64_18 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Journal of Medical Signals & Sensors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Forouzesh, Farin
Rabbani, Mohsen
Bonakdar, Shahin
A Comparison between Ultrasonic Bath and Direct Sonicator on Osteochondral Tissue Decellularization
title A Comparison between Ultrasonic Bath and Direct Sonicator on Osteochondral Tissue Decellularization
title_full A Comparison between Ultrasonic Bath and Direct Sonicator on Osteochondral Tissue Decellularization
title_fullStr A Comparison between Ultrasonic Bath and Direct Sonicator on Osteochondral Tissue Decellularization
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison between Ultrasonic Bath and Direct Sonicator on Osteochondral Tissue Decellularization
title_short A Comparison between Ultrasonic Bath and Direct Sonicator on Osteochondral Tissue Decellularization
title_sort comparison between ultrasonic bath and direct sonicator on osteochondral tissue decellularization
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6839442/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31737551
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jmss.JMSS_64_18
work_keys_str_mv AT forouzeshfarin acomparisonbetweenultrasonicbathanddirectsonicatoronosteochondraltissuedecellularization
AT rabbanimohsen acomparisonbetweenultrasonicbathanddirectsonicatoronosteochondraltissuedecellularization
AT bonakdarshahin acomparisonbetweenultrasonicbathanddirectsonicatoronosteochondraltissuedecellularization
AT forouzeshfarin comparisonbetweenultrasonicbathanddirectsonicatoronosteochondraltissuedecellularization
AT rabbanimohsen comparisonbetweenultrasonicbathanddirectsonicatoronosteochondraltissuedecellularization
AT bonakdarshahin comparisonbetweenultrasonicbathanddirectsonicatoronosteochondraltissuedecellularization