TY - JOUR
T1 - The inflammatory responses to silk films in vitro and in vivo
AU - Meinel, L.
AU - Hofmann, S.
AU - Karageorgiou, V.
AU - Kirker-Head, C.
AU - McCool, J.
AU - Gronowicz, G.
AU - Zichner, L.
AU - Langer, R.
AU - Vunjak-Novakovic, G.
AU - Kaplan, D.L.
PY - 2005
Y1 - 2005
N2 - Silks have a long history of biomedical use as sutures. Silk can be purified, chemically modified to attach RGD sequences and processed into highly porous scaffolds for tissue engineering. We report biocompatibility studies of silk films (with or without covalently bound RGD) that were seeded with bone-marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) and (a) cultured in vitro with human MSC or (b) seeded with autologous rat MSC and implanted in vivo. Controls for in vitro studies included tissue culture plastic (TCP; negative control), TCP with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in the cell culture medium (positive control), and collagen films; controls for in vivo studies included collagen, PLA and TCP. After 9h of culture, the expression of the pro-inflammatory Interleukin 1 beta (IL-1ß) and inflammatory cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) in human MSC were comparable for silk, collagen and TCP. After 30 and 96h, gene expression of IL-1ß and COX-2 in MSC returned to the baseline (pre-seeding) levels. These data were corroborated by measuring IL-1ß and prostaglandin E2 levels in culture medium. The rate of cell proliferation was higher on silk films than either on collagen or TCP. In vivo, films made of silk, collagen or PLA were seeded with rat MSCs, implanted intramuscularly in rats and harvested after 6 weeks. Histological and immunohistochemical evaluation of silk explants revealed the presence of circumferentially oriented fibroblasts, few blood vessels, macrophages at the implant-host interface, and the absence of giant cells. Inflammatory tissue reaction was more conspicuous around collagen films and even more around PLA films when compared to silk. These data suggest that (a) purified degradable silk is biocompatible and (b) the in vitro cell culture model (hMSC seeded and cultured on biomaterial films) gave inflammatory responses that were comparable to those observed in vivo. © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
AB - Silks have a long history of biomedical use as sutures. Silk can be purified, chemically modified to attach RGD sequences and processed into highly porous scaffolds for tissue engineering. We report biocompatibility studies of silk films (with or without covalently bound RGD) that were seeded with bone-marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) and (a) cultured in vitro with human MSC or (b) seeded with autologous rat MSC and implanted in vivo. Controls for in vitro studies included tissue culture plastic (TCP; negative control), TCP with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in the cell culture medium (positive control), and collagen films; controls for in vivo studies included collagen, PLA and TCP. After 9h of culture, the expression of the pro-inflammatory Interleukin 1 beta (IL-1ß) and inflammatory cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) in human MSC were comparable for silk, collagen and TCP. After 30 and 96h, gene expression of IL-1ß and COX-2 in MSC returned to the baseline (pre-seeding) levels. These data were corroborated by measuring IL-1ß and prostaglandin E2 levels in culture medium. The rate of cell proliferation was higher on silk films than either on collagen or TCP. In vivo, films made of silk, collagen or PLA were seeded with rat MSCs, implanted intramuscularly in rats and harvested after 6 weeks. Histological and immunohistochemical evaluation of silk explants revealed the presence of circumferentially oriented fibroblasts, few blood vessels, macrophages at the implant-host interface, and the absence of giant cells. Inflammatory tissue reaction was more conspicuous around collagen films and even more around PLA films when compared to silk. These data suggest that (a) purified degradable silk is biocompatible and (b) the in vitro cell culture model (hMSC seeded and cultured on biomaterial films) gave inflammatory responses that were comparable to those observed in vivo. © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
U2 - 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.02.047
DO - 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.02.047
M3 - Article
C2 - 15207461
SN - 0142-9612
VL - 26
SP - 147
EP - 155
JO - Biomaterials
JF - Biomaterials
IS - 2
ER -