Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T16:50:00.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Porous scaffold made from collagen and liposomes coated with plant derived polysaccharide - in vivo study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2012

Otilia Zarnescu ,
Lucia Moldovan ,
Mihaela Trif ,
Magdalena Moisei ,
Alexandra Gaspar  and
Florin Leau
Otilia Zarnescu
Affiliation:
University of Bucharest, Spl. Independentei 91-95, Bucharest, Romania.
Lucia Moldovan
Affiliation:
National Institute of Research and Development for Biological Sciences, Splaiul Independentei 296, Bucharest, Romania.
Mihaela Trif
Affiliation:
Institute of Biochemistry, Splaiul Independentei 296, Bucharest, Romania.
Magdalena Moisei
Affiliation:
National Institute of Research and Development for Biological Sciences, Splaiul Independentei 296, Bucharest, Romania. Institute of Biochemistry, Splaiul Independentei 296, Bucharest, Romania.
Florin Leau
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Splaiul Independentei 105, Bucharest, Romania.
Get access

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the in vivo biocompatibility of a new composite made from collagen and liposomes coated with plant derived polysaccharide using a rat subcutaneous implantation model. Histological observation has shown that after five days post-implantation, granulation tissue with vascular dilatation and inflammatory cell infiltration was formed adjacent to the implanted scaffold. After two weeks post-implantation, scaffold was highly infiltrated with cells and many of multinucleated giant cells were found to be aligned along the implant/tissue interface. At four weeks the scaffold was completely infiltrated with cells and a fibrous connective capsule isolate the implanted scaffold from the surrounding tissue. The inflammatory response to the implanted scaffold was assessed by immunohistochemical staining for interleukin 1β. IL-1β was demonstrated early in the post-implantation period (five days), but after two weeks, the intensity of IL-1β staining was on the decline. In vivo studies based on histological and immunohistochemical observations showed that throughout the period of implantation, composite scaffold was well tolerated by the host animals and immune responses to the implant were moderate. The observations are consistent with the normal wound healing response to subcutaneous implantation of biomaterials. The results from the in vivo study indicate a good biocompatibility for porous scaffold made from collagen and liposomes coated with plant derived polysaccharide.

Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1376: Symposium S11 – Biomaterials for Medical Applications , 2012 , imrc11-1376-s11-p08
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Khosravi-Darani, K., Pardakhty, A., Honarpisheh, H., Rao, V.S., and Mozafari, M.R., Micron 38, 804 (2007).Google Scholar
2. Torchilin, V. P., Nat Rev Drug Discov. 4, 145 (2005).Google Scholar
3. Khalil, I.A., Kogure, K., Akita, H., and Harashima, H., Pharmacol. Rev. 58, 32 (2006).Google Scholar
4. Raviv, U., Needleman, D.J., Li, Y., Miller, H.P., Wilson, L., and Safinya, C.R., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 11167 (2005).Google Scholar
5. Trif, M., Moldovan, L., Moisei, M., Craciunescu, O., and Zarnescu, O., Micron 39, 1042 (2008).Google Scholar
6. Sihorkar, V., and Vyas, S.P., J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 4, 138 (2001).Google Scholar
7. Setty, A.R., and Sigal, L.H., Semin Arthritis Rheum, 34, 773 (2005).Google Scholar
8. Metselaar, J.M., and Storm, G., Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2, 465 (2005)Google Scholar
9. Uebelhart, D., Knols, R., de Bruin, E.D., and Verbruggen, G., Adv. Pharmacol. 53, 523 (2006).Google Scholar
10. Chrubasik, J.E. Roufogalis, B.D. Wagner, H., and Chrubasik, S.A., Phytomedicine, 14, 423 (2007).Google Scholar
11. Moldovan, L., Craciunescu, O., Balan, M., Gaspar, A., and Gherghina, E., Rev. Chim. Bucharest, 59, 1022 (2008).Google Scholar
12. Trif, M., Guillen, C., Vaughan, D.M., Telfer, J.M., Brewer, J.M., Roseanu, A., and Brock, J.H., Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 226, 559 (2001).Google Scholar
13. Moldovan, L. Craciunescu, O. Zarnescu, O. Macocinschi, D. and Bojin, D., Journal of Optoelectronics and Advanced Materials 10, 942 (2008).Google Scholar
14. Cohen, R., and Barenholz, Y.J.Y., Biochim Biophys Acta. 21, 94 (1984).Google Scholar
15. Pajean, M., and Herbage, D., Int J Pharm. 91, 209 (1993).Google Scholar
16. van Minnen, B. van Leeuwen, B M.B. Stegenga, B. Zuidema, J. Hissink, C.E. van Kooten, T.G. and Bos, R.R., J Mater Sci Mater Med. 16, 22 (2005).Google Scholar
17. Anderson, J.M., Rodriguez, A., and Chang, D.T., Semin Immunol. 20, 86 (2008).Google Scholar
18. Ding, T., Sun, J., and Zhang, P., J Mater Sci Mater Med. 18, 2233(2007).Google Scholar
19. Chellat, F., Tabrizian, M., Dumitriu, S., Chornet, E., Magny, P., and Rivard, C.H., J Biomed Mater Res. 51, 107 (2000).Google Scholar