Author’s Proof
Carefully read the entire proof and mark all corrections in the appropriate place, using the Adobe Reader commenting tools (Adobe Help). Do not forget to reply to the queries.
We do not accept corrections in the form of edited manuscripts.
In order to ensure the timely publication of your article, please submit the corrections within 48 hours.
If you have any questions, please [email protected].
Author Queries Form
Q1 The citation and surnames of all of the authors have been highlighted. Please check all of the names carefully and indicate if any are incorrect. Please note that this may affect the indexing of your article in repositories such as PubMed.
Q2 Confirm that the email address in your correspondence section is accurate.
Q3 Please ask the following authors toregisterwith Frontiers (at https:// www.frontiersin.org/Registration/Register.aspx) if they would like their names on the article abstract page and PDF to be linked to a Frontiers profile. Please ensure to provide us with the profile link(s) when submitting the proof corrections. Non-registered authors will have the default profile image displayed.
“Samuele Bisconti” “Aurora De Acutis” “Francesco Biagini” “Anna Lapomarda” “Carmelo De Maria” “Francesca Montemurro” “Dario Bizzotto.”
Q4 If you decide to use previously published,copyrighted figuresin your article, please keep in mind that it is your responsibility, as the author, to obtain the appropriate permissions and licenses and to follow any citation instructions requested by third-party rights holders. If obtaining the reproduction rights involves the payment of a fee, these charges are to be paid by the authors.
Q5 Ensure that all the figures, tables and captions are correct.
Q6 Verify that all the equations and special characters are displayed correctly.
Q7 Ensure to add all grant numbers and funding information, as after publication this is no longer possible.
Q8 Ensure, if it applies to your study, the ethics statement is included in the article.
are mentioned there.
Q10 Please confirm whether the insertion of the section “Data Availability” is fine.
Q11 Could you please confirm if all author affiliations are fine as listed?
Q12 Please cite the following references inside the text.
“Dunn and Silver, 1983; Jacquemoud et al., 2007; Khatyr et al., 2004; Ki et al., 2005; Ní et al., 2012; Nguyen, 2010; Song et al., 2008.”
Q13 Please provide the name of the editors, city name, and page range for “Ladd et al., 2012.”
Q14 Please provide doi for “Mindru et al., 2007.”
Q15 Please provide city name for “Zhang et al., 2014.”
Q16 Please specify the “∗” inside the artwork of “Figure 6” which is explained in the caption.
Q17 Please confirm whether the heading levels in the article have been identified correctly.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: xx July 2019 doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00174 Edited by: Ilkwon Oh, Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology (KAIST), South Korea
Reviewed by:
Senentxu Lanceros-Mendez, University of Minho, Portugal Cesare Stefanini, Sant’Anna School of Advanced
Q2
Studies, Italy
*Correspondence:
Gabriele Maria Fortunato [email protected]
†These authors have contributed
equally to this work
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to Bionics and Biomimetics, a section of the journal Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
Received: 07 May 2019 Accepted: 04 July 2019 Published: xx July 2019 Citation:
Fortunato GM, Da Ros F, Bisconti S, De Acutis A, Biagini F, Lapomarda A, Magliaro C, De Maria C, Montemurro F, Bizzotto D, Braghetta P and Vozzi G (2019) Electrospun Structures Made of a Hydrolyzed Keratin-Based Biomaterial for Development of in vitro Tissue Models. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 7:174. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00174
Electrospun Structures Made of a
Hydrolyzed Keratin-Based
Biomaterial for Development of in
vitro
Tissue Models
Q1 Q3
Gabriele Maria Fortunato1*†, Francesco Da Ros2†, Samuele Bisconti1, Aurora De Acutis1, Francesco Biagini1, Anna Lapomarda1, Chiara Magliaro1, Carmelo De Maria1,
Francesca Montemurro1, Dario Bizzotto2, Paola Braghetta2and Giovanni Vozzi1
1Research Centre ‘E. Piaggio’, Department of Ingegneria dell’Informazione of University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy,2Department of Q11 Molecular Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
The aim of this study is the analysis and characterization of a hydrolyzed keratin-based biomaterial and its processing using electrospinning technology to develop in vitro tissue models. This biomaterial, extracted from poultry feathers, was mixed with type A porcine gelatin and cross-linked with γ-glycidyloxy-propyl-trimethoxy-silane (GPTMS) to be casted initially in the form of film and characterized in terms of swelling, contact angle, mechanical properties, and surface charge density. After these chemical-physical characterizations, electrospun nanofibers structures were manufactured and their mechanical properties were evaluated. Finally, cell response was analyzed by testing the efficacy of keratin-based structures in sustaining cell vitality and proliferation over 4 days of human epithelial, rat neuronal and human primary skin fibroblast cells.
Keywords: hydrolyzed keratin, gelatin, GPTMS, TFE, electrospinning, tissue engineering
INTRODUCTION
In order to reproduce a functional engineered in vitro tissue model, it is important to mimic the Q6
topological and mechanical features of native tissue, given the strict relationship between function and structure (Vozzi and Ahluwalia, 2007). Human tissues are complex three-dimensional (3D) structures composed of different cell types arranged in complex topologies where a well-organized Q17
vascular network ensures that the distance of each cell from a vascular capillary is <50 µm. Moreover, since each tissue presents a well-defined mechanical behavior, inappropriate mechanical properties will induce abnormal cell activities. In vivo, cells are interconnected each other in the 3D volume and not in a plane as it normally happens in the standard cell culture in a multi-well plate. On the basis of this evidence, it is important to create 3D polymeric scaffolds able to guide cell growth and activation of their functions.
Several synthetic and natural biomaterials have been tested and modified in order to mimic extra-cellular matrix (ECM) characteristics. Traditionally, synthetic polymers have been used because they can be processed more easily with different bioprinting technologies in different complex structure in order to mimic at meso- and micro- level the properties of targeted tissues (De Maria et al., 2017; Moroni et al., 2017). However, their degradation once tested in vitro or in vivo does not ensure their correct subsistence for the entire period required by cells to colonize the structure, because the degradation mechanism is often not controllable and its products can alter
115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228
cell processes and sometimes can induce inflammatory process. Contrary to synthetic polymers, natural polymers (usually extracted from natural tissues) match all the properties required to mimic ECM and degrade much faster than synthetic biomaterials, even if sometimes they are difficult to process with bioprinting technologies.
Keratin is an interesting natural biomaterial that can be used for scaffold fabrication. It is a fibrous protein with a structure similar to collagen, and it is the main component of the epidermal corneal layer, nails and appendages such as hairs, horns, feathers, and wool. Keratin contains many molecules of the aminoacid cysteine that enables disulfide bridges formations. Disulfide bridges boost the hydrogen bonds action in maintaining a close cohesion of keratin chains, wrapping in a structure similar to a helix. These bonds, provide stiffness and strength to hair, nails and horns (Zhang et al., 2014).
During the extraction process, keratin is degraded, chemically or enzymatically, in units of smaller dimensions with the breaking of disulphide bridges (hydrolyzed keratin) thereby losing its characteristics of rigidity and insolubility in water. Only through enzymatic hydrolysis, it is possible to control and obtain subunits of desired molecular weight (Tsuda and Nomura, 2014; Staroszczyk and Sinkiewicz, 2017).
Keratin and its hydrolizates have tripeptides sequences Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD) and Leu-Asp-Val (LDV) that could bind with cell surface ligands acting as the ECM that facilitates cell and cell-matrix interactions promoting cell adhesion and supporting cell proliferation (Wang et al., 2012; Burnett et al., 2013). Thanks to these properties, keratin and hydrolized keratin derived from by-products of animal industry, such as wool fibers, animal hair and feathers, have been processed alone or in combination with other biomaterials to form film, sponges and scaffolds for medical applications (Rouse and Van Dyke, 2010) such as wound healing, bone regeneration (Saravanan et al., 2013), drug delivery (Saul et al., 2011), haemostasis, and peripheral nerves repair (Wang et al., 2012).
The weak point of keratin-based materials is their poor mechanical properties (Yamauchi et al., 1996), resulting too fragile for practical use. This issue can be solved by the addition of natural or synthetic polymers such as chitosan, silk fibroin, gelatin, and polyethylene oxide (Prasong and Wasan, 2011; Balaji et al., 2012). Chitosan, in particular, is derived from chitin, that is the second most abundant natural polymer. Chitin-based materials are widely used in the biomedical field thanks to their properties of biocompatibility and biodegradability, but also to their cationic nature that enhances the interaction with growth factors, nucleic acids and cytokines. Main tissue engineering applications of chitin are related to the regeneration of bone, while they were not completely examined for skin and soft tissues (Yang, 2011).
Homogeneous films with smooth surfaces were obtained, from mixtures of keratin and gelatin, which showed a high miscibility between the two components (Rouse and Van Dyke, 2010; Prasong and Wasan, 2011). If provided with the right porosity (Zeltinger et al., 2001; O’Brien et al., 2005), scaffolds made with gelatin and keratin could be able to mimic ECM microenvironment, characterized by high pore interconnectivity
and a pore size which ranges from meso to nano scale. In recent years, electrospinning has emerged as an enabling tool for fabricating scaffold with these multiscale features (Soliman et al., 2010; Sreerekha et al., 2013).
In this work, we produced and characterized films made of hydrolyzed-keratin-based biomaterials in terms of their chemical and physical features (swelling, contact angle, mechanical properties, and surface charge density). These materials were processed using the electrospinning technique to develop a suitable substrates for in vitro tissue models, which were tested with different cell types. This method allows to produce a thin polymeric structure that presents an intrinsic micro and nano porosity similar to the one of the natural ECM. Dimensions of the fibers, porosity and topology of the structure can be modulated varying working parameters, e.g., the distance between the metal needle and the collector or the applied voltage, and the solution parameters, e.g., the polymer concentration (Subbiah et al., 2005; Carrabba et al., 2016).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Keratin Based Solutions and
Film Preparation
Hydrolyzed keratin was gently provided by Consortium SGS Q8
(Santacroce sull’Arno, Italy), a company that processes animal byproducts. In this specific case, keratin was obtained from chicken feathers processed by alkaline hydrolysis (MW > 10 kDa) containing about 1% of free amino acids. The final concentration was 35◦Brix.
A 10% w/v aqueous solution of gelatin from porcine skin, type A (Sigma-Aldrich, Italy) was prepared dissolving gelatin powder by continuous stirring at 50◦C for 1 h. (3-Glycidyloxypropyl)-trimethoxysilane (GPTMS) (Sigma-Aldrich, Italy) was used as cross-linking agent.
Gelatin (G) and keratin hydrolizates (K) solutions were mixed at different volume ratios: K:G 1:1, 1:2, 2:1. GPTMS was added in a ratio of 6% w/v respect to the final volume, and the resulting solutions were stirred for 40 min at 50◦C. Films from the three different solutions were prepared by casting in a plastic petri dish of 3 cm diameter and dried for 24 h at 37◦C.
Electrospinning Material Preparation
Solutions for electrospinning were prepared starting from a 10% w/v gelatin type A solution in 50% w/v (in deionized water) 2,2,2-Trifluoroethanol (TFE) (Sigma-Aldrich, Italy) (Subbiah et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2005; Choktaweesap et al., 2007; Mindru et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2009; Elliott et al., 2009; Soliman et al., 2010; Zhan and Lan, 2012; Tamrin Nuge, 2013; Dai et al., 2014; Carrabba et al., 2016) by stirring at room temperature for 24 h. TFE was chosen due to long term stability of keratin hydrolizated solution, which tends to form a precipitate, impossible to be electrospun with other solvents. Keratin hydrolizates and 6% w/v GPTMS were added to this gelatin solution according to three different volume ratios used for film preparation (K:G 1:1, 1:2, 2:1).
229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342
Fortunato et al. Electrospun Keratin for Tissue Engineering
Swelling Test on Films
Three samples for each type of film were dipped in deionized water and at specific time points (every 30 min for the first 4 h, then every 1 h until 6 h and finally at 24 h, 30 h, and 4 days) their weight (using a Metler Toledo AE240 balance) and area (using ImageJ software after image acquisition with Canon A620 digital camera) were measured. The swelling percentage was calculated according to Equation (1):
%swelling=100×pi−p0
p0 (1)
where piis the weight (or area) measured at the i-th time point and p0is the initial weight (or area). Then, samples were dried
and weight loss percentage was measured (Equation 2):
%weight loss=100×p0−pf
p0 (2)
where pfis the final weight of dried samples.
Contact Angle Measurement on Films
Static contact angle was measured using the sessile drop method, with a 5 µl double distilled water droplet at room temperature. Images were acquired with a horizontal optical microscope equipped with a digital camera and the CAM 200 software. The test was performed on dried and hydrated samples; for each angle reported, at least five measurements on different surface locations were averaged.FIGURE 1 | (a) Casted K:G 1:1 solution on a metal plate. Scale bar = 1 cm; (b) Schematic structure of the measurement system; (c) Example of data analysis. In gray
Q4
Q5 voltage trend detected by Matlab developed software, in blue the application of the moving mean filter, in orange the section with mostly constant trend considered and, in green the relative standard deviation. The constant stretch in black represents the average value; (d) Standard model: uniform K:G solution; (e) Model 1: parallel model between K:G solution and air bubbles, modeled with the same properties of vacuum; (f) Model 2: series model between K:G solution and air bubbles.
343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456
TABLE 1 | Investigated electrospinning parameters.
Q5
Flow rate (ml/h) 1 2 3
Applied potential (kV) 20 30 40
Distance from collector (cm) 10 15 20
Time (h) 1/2 1 2
Surface Charge Density Measurement
Surface potential or charge can have influence on cell adhesion (Chang et al., 2014, 2016). Surface potential measurements were made using a Kelvin vibrating plate (KSV Instruments, Sweden), with a nominal error of +/- 10 mV. The Kelvin vibrating plate measures the surface potential between two conductors, the sample holder and probe respectively, placed about 1 mm apart. The difference in measured potential between the sample holder with and without (reference potential) the sample is given by the surface potential of the sample, and it depends on its thickness, dielectric constant and surface charge density. For these experiments the keratin-based solutions were casted on aluminum plates (Figure 1a). Three samples of each solution were analyzed. After the acquisition of the reference potential (i.e., sample holder without sample), the thickness of casted film and the distance between the film and the vibrating plate (according to the diagram shown in Figure 1b) were measured. The potential difference was evaluated every 10 min using a purposely written software, developed in Matlab R. Data werefiltered with a moving average filter and the variance analysis was performed in order to determine when the signal presented a constant trend (Figure 1c), which was taken to evaluate the surface charge density of polymer.
The surface charge density was calculated by modeling the system as a capacitor, with three different configuration reported in Figures 1d–f. In the first model (Figure 1d), the material was considered to be homogeneous while, in the cases shown in
Figures 1e,f, the contribution of the air bubbles, that can be present in the film (∼50%), was taken into account.
Electrospinning Process
In this work, electrospun structures were fabricated from the three different solutions using a Linari electrospinning system (Linari Engineering Ltd., Pisa, Italy), by varying the applied potential, the flow rate, the distance between the needle and the collector and the electrospinning process duration (time), in order to find the optimal working parameters (Table 1). For each one of the 81 combinations of the parameters, three samples were fabricated (example in Figure 2).
Mechanical Characterization
Mechanical characterization of both casted films and electrospun structures was carried out performing uniaxial tensile tests using a universal machine Zwick-Roell Z005 ProLine equipped with a 100N load cell. Three rectangular shaped specimens for each type of structure were tested. Samples were pulled with a strain rate of 10%/min of the initial length until failure. Load F (N) and elongation 1x (m) were recorded and from the stress–strain graphs the
FIGURE 2 | K:G 1:1 sample (2 h deposition). Scale bar = 1 cm.
TABLE 2 | Combination of different electrospinning parameters analyzed to evaluate their effect on mechanical properties of keratin-based structures.
Test K:G ratio Distance (cm) Flow (ml/h) Voltage (kV) Time (h)
Case 1 V1 1:2 20 1 30 2 V2 1:2 20 1 40 2 Case 2 T1 1:1 20 3 30 1/2 T2 1:1 20 3 30 1 T3 1:1 20 3 30 2 Case 3 F1 1:1 20 1 30 2 F2 1:1 20 3 30 2 Case 4 C1 1:2 20 1 30 2 C2 1:1 20 1 30 2
For each case, the values of the parameter under investigation are underlined.
elastic modulus E (Pa), the failure stress σmax, (Pa), the corresponding failure strain εr, and toughness U (J m−3) were calculated.
Regarding electrospun structures, to evaluate how variations in the process parameters affect the mechanical properties, four different cases (Table 2), were considered: in each case, one parameter a time varies (K:G ratio, Flow (ml/h), Voltage (kV), electrospinning duration (Time, h), while the distance was kept constant.
Scanning Electron Microscopy and
Image Analysis
The microscopic structure was analyzed by the scanning electron microscopy (SEM), focusing attention on diameter and distribution of the fibers. Three images were acquired for each sample at 300×, 500×, and 1,000× magnification. A qualitative diameter analysis was carried out by randomly measuring fibers in acquired images (at 1,000× magnification) by ImageJ software.
457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570
Fortunato et al. Electrospun Keratin for Tissue Engineering
FIGURE 3 | (A) Casted samples K:G 1:1 swelling trend for weight and area (samples K:G 1:2 and K:G 2:1 showed a similar trend); (B) Weight loss percentage; Tukey’s multiple comparisons test **p < 0.007; (C) Elastic modulus trend; *p < 0.02, ****p < 0.0001; (D) Failure stress trend; *p < 0.02; (E) Failure strain trend; *p < 0.04; (F) Surface charge density for three different model.
Cell Vitality and Proliferation Assay
Cell culture was performed on K:G 1:1 electrospun samples given their mechanical properties more similar to biological tissues (see section Results), and the following electrospinning parameters were selected: 30 kV, 20 cm, 1 ml/h, 1 h. Human epithelial HEK-293T cells, rat neuronal RT4-P6D2T cells and human primary skin fibroblasts were plated at density of 2 × 104 cells/well in a 12-well plate on keratin-based structure and cultured in DMEM-10%FBS (Invitrogen) and evaluated at three time points (1, 2, and 4 days).
For proliferation assay, 5-ethynyl-2′-deoxyuridine (EdU, 10 µM in PBS, Invitrogen) was added in the medium 12 h before the end of the experiment. To monitor cell vitality, CellTracker
TMGreen CMFDA (5 µM in PBS, Invitrogen) was added for
1.5 h before fixation. Cells were fixed in 4% PFA for 5 min, washed twice in PBS for 5 min and then stained for EdU with Click-IT EdU Alexa Fluor 555 Imaging Kit (Life Technologies). Hoechst 33258 (Sigma Aldrich) was used as nuclear counterstain. Immunofluorescence acquisition was performed using Zeiss LSM 700 confocal microscopy.
Statistical Analysis
A Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to evaluate if data distributions were normal. Statistical differences between Gaussian groups were evaluated by one-way ANOVA. Having three groups, in case of the existence of a significant difference, a post-hoc analysis using the Tukey test was carried out, to check the difference between each pair of means. For cell vitality and proliferation, statistical analysis was performed with one-tail Mann-Whitney test. For each statistical test a significance level p = 0.05 was considered. Correlation was evaluated by Pearson coefficient (r) considering a direct/inverse proportionality with |r| > 0.7.
RESULTS
Swelling Test
Films presented a large initial (within the first hour) swelling, which increases with the keratin concentration presenting a weight increase of 400% in the case of K:G 1:2 and 700% in case of K:G 2:1, before reaching a plateau after 6 h (Figure 3A). This
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684
FIGURE 4 | SEM images for different electrospun samples (1 h deposition at 1 ml/h): (A–C) 35 kV, 15 cm sample 300×, 500×, 1,000×; (D–F) 35 kV, 20 cm sample 300×, 500×, 1,000×; (G–I) 50 kV, 15 cm sample 300×, 500×, 1,000×.
result suggest that the hydrolized keratin favors the inlet of water inside the sample. The increase of geometrical dimensions (area) follows the same trend of weight variation.
Samples with higher keratin content present a higher weight loss (around 80%) respect to samples with a lower content of keratin (60%) (Figure 3B). A one-way ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference between groups (F = 19.54, p = 0.002 < 0.05).
Contact Angle Measurement
Both hydrated and dried samples present an high hydrophilicity, with a low contact angle (<40◦ for dry samples and <8◦ for wet samples). The influence of keratin content is significant only in hydrated sample (F = 7.054, p = 0.014 < 0.05), while no statistical differences were noted in dry samples (F = 3.095, p = 0.095).
Surface Charge Density Measurement
The measure of the surface charge density shows negative values where the keratin content prevails, regardless the type ofmathematical model used for analyzing data (Figure 3F). This behavior can be explained considering the isoelectric point of the components. The starting solution is in fact strongly basic with a pH∼13 and well above the isoelectric point of keratin (∼9) and gelatin (∼7), and thus in solution both proteins present a negative charge The addition of GPTMS decreases however the negative charge (Kamra et al., 2015; Rosaria et al., 2017). The presence of air bubbles strongly affects the calculus of surface charge density: if the content of air is neglected the models indicate a density which ranges from 10−3 to 10−5 C/m2, while it results between 10−10and 10−11C/m2if air is taken into account.
Electrospinning Processing and
Topological Analysis
The keratin and gelatin based solutions resulted suitable for electrospinning, forming 3D structures with variable thickness depending on set parameters: for example, an increase in deposition time or flow rate increases the thickness. The diameter of the fibers was instead evaluated by SEM images analysis. The examined samples were electrospun at the same flow rate and
685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798
Fortunato et al. Electrospun Keratin for Tissue Engineering
FIGURE 5 | Stress strain curves for electrospun films (in each graph εrand σmaxare showed): (A) Case 1: different voltage applied; (B) Case 2: different time of
deposition; (C) Case 3: different flow rate; (D) Case 4: different type of solution.
deposition time, and thus these parameters were excluded from the analysis of the results.
Samples show a decrease in the diameter of the fibers as the applied voltage increases (Figure 4), from 1.73 ± 0.35 µm at 35 kV to 1.01 ± 0.32 µm at 50 kV (a one-way ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference between different samples: F = 9.232, p < 0.001). Some defects are present mainly consisting in pearl-shaped structures in samples fabricated at 35 kV. The needle-collector distance seems to not affect the fiber dimensions.
Mechanical Characterization
Mechanical characterization of casted wet samples showed that (Figures 3C–E):
1) the elastic modulus and maximum stress increases as the gelatin content increases (one-way ANOVA on elastic modulus data: F = 166.2, p < 0.0001; maximum stress: F = 6.316, p = 0.017);
2) the failure strain decreases as the gelatin content increases (F =4.643, p = 0.038).
These statistically significant differences indicate that the increase of gelatin content creates stiffer but more fragile biomaterials. Mechanical properties of electrospun films were evaluated according to different cases showed in Table 2.
Figure 5Areports the comparison of case 1: the increase of the voltage forms a more brittle and less resistant material, with a reduced failure stress and strain, but not significant changes in the elastic modulus. The increase in electrospinning process duration (Figure 5B) results into stiffer but less compliant biomaterial, with a lower toughness. An increase in flow rate
results also in greater stiffness and lower toughness (Figure 5C). The gelatin content also influences the properties of the structure (Figure 5D): as its content increases, the sample is more resistant (as in casted samples), but it is also less brittle, indicating an influence of the micro and nanostructure. In all cases, the elastic modulus was in the range 30–70 MPa.
Cell Vitality and Proliferation Assay
To test the efficacy of keratin-based structure in sustaining vitality and proliferation of cells we adopted different approaches. Firstly, we used the CellTracker Green dye to test if different types of cells are vital after 4 days of culture in the keratin based structure. This fluorescent probe was designed to freely pass through cell membranes, but it is transformed in a cell-impermeant reaction product only in vital cells. As shown in Figure 6A, all of the different cell types considered (human epithelial HEK-293T, rat neuronal RT4-D6PD2, human primary skin fibroblasts) showed a strong fluorescent staining after 4 days of culture, meaning they are truly vital. Moreover, to better understand if the biomaterial sustains also the proliferation, and not only the vitality of cells, we performed proliferation assay using EdU dye at three different time points. Both HEK-293T (Figures 6B, 7A) and RT4-D6PD2 (Figures 6A–D) showed high proliferation rate (EdU+ cells) at all the three time points (Figures 7B,C). An increase in the total number of cells per squared millimeter is evident already at day 2 and it continues to raise at 4 days (Figures 6C–E, 7A). Furthermore, cells were well-distributed in the three dimensions within the biomaterial as demonstrated by the variation in nuclei positions that could be observed
799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912
FIGURE 6 | Different cell lines are vital and proliferate in keratin based structure. (A) CellTrackerTMGreen CMFDA staining (CT-Green) of human HEK-293T, rat
Q16
RT4-P6D2T cells and human primary skin fibroblasts after 4 days of culture. Hoechst was used for nuclear staining. Scale bar 50 µm; (B,D) Representative images after 2 days of culture of EdU staining (red) of HEK-293T (B) and RT4-D6P2T (D) cells. Hoechst was used for nuclear staining. Scale bar 50 µm; (C,E) Histograms showing the total number of cells and EdU positive cells for square millimeter after 1, 2 and 4 days of culture. */§P < 0,05; **/§§P < 0,01; * vs. 1d, § vs. 2d. in different plane in a Z projection obtained by confocal
microscopy (Figure 8).
DISCUSSION
In this work we presented a method for the use of a waste material such as keratin extracted from poultry feathers and its potential applications in tissue engineering field.
Results from casted samples characterization indicates that we can tune the chemical and mechanical properties of keratin-based biomaterials by varying the ratio between gelatin and keratin content, keeping the GPTMS content constant. Samples with higher keratin content present a better ability to adsorb water, which can be addressed to a less dense mesh of intermolecular bonds, while increasing the gelatin content let to a more dense molecular mesh with a lower weight loss and a lower swelling. These conclusions are also confirmed by mechanical testing, which indicates more rigid samples
with increased gelatin content. The surface charge density test highlighted a difference between the different types of solutions. In particular, as the keratin content increases the surface charge density becomes more negative due to the isoelectric point of the two materials as explained in the section Results.
With regard to the electrospun structures,
the main results obtained from the
mechanical characterization can be summarized as follows:
1) as the flow rate increases and the duration of the electrospinning process is extended, stiffer but considerably more brittle structures are obtained;
2) with a higher percentage of gelatin, there is an increase in the strength and toughness of the fiber matrix, as showed by casted films;
3) the increase in voltage leads to embrittlement and lower strength of the fibers;
913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026
Fortunato et al. Electrospun Keratin for Tissue Engineering
FIGURE 7 | (A) Representative images of EdU staining in HEK-293T and RT4-D6P2T cells after 1, 2 and 4 days of culture on keratin based structure; (B,C) Histograms representing the percentage of HEK-293T (B) and RT4-P6D2T (C) EdU positive cells/total cells. Hoechst was used for nuclear staining. §P < 0.05 vs. 2d. Scale bar is 50 µm.
4) the elastic modulus of the nanofiber matrix is directly proportional to the electrospinning time and the flow rate, while it is not influenced by the voltage and the gelatin percentage of the solution;
5) the maximum stress is inversely proportional to the voltage and directly proportional to the percentage of gelatin present in the solution;
6) the failure strain is influenced by all the parameters of the electrospinning process. In particular, it is inversely proportional to the voltage, the duration of the test and the flow rate, while it increases as the percentage of gelatin increases;
7) the energy per unit of volume stored by matrix (i.e., toughness) decreases with increasing voltage and flow rate.
Main results of mechanical characterization are summarized in Table 3.
Furthermore, based on the effects that each parameter of the electrospinning process has on the mechanical properties of the nanofiber matrices, it is possible to choose which combination
of parameter is the best according to different applications. For example, when regenerating biological tissues, it is preferable that the mechanical characteristics of the electrospun structures are as close as possible to those of the tissue to reproduce. In particular, the results obtained from the mechanical characterization are comparable to two specific soft tissues, such as nerve tissue and skin. Comparing skin values (Chang et al., 2014, 2016; Kamra et al., 2015; Rosaria et al., 2017) with those obtained from tensile test of the matrices of nanofibers, it was noticed that the elastic modulus of the electrospun structures (30–70 MPa) were comparable with skin values, even if with lower ability to resist to large deformation.
Considering, instead, the nervous tissue and its mechanical properties (Kamra et al., 2015), results showed that electrospun structures K:G 1:1 are stiffer than the biological target, even if failure stress and strain are similar. Reducing the deposition time or flow rate can be an option to mimic in this case the biological tissue. These mechanical properties affect cell response and vitality. It was demonstrated that electrospun constructs are biocompatible and can be colonized by human
1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140
FIGURE 8 | Representative image sequence for HEK-293T and RT4-P6D2T nuclei after 4 days of culture, showing cells growing on different planes. Red arrows indicate some nuclei belonging to cells grew on different planes in keratin bases structure. Hoechst was used for nuclear staining. Scale bar is 50 µm.
epithelial cells, rat neurons and primary fibroblasts of human skin due to their high porosity. However, due to too different stiffness values compared to nervous tissue, epithelial cells resulted more proliferating after 4 days compared to neural cells, thus showing promising results for applications for the regeneration of epithelial tissue. Many other biomaterials have been tested in recent studies for skin and nerve regeneration. For example, natural polymers such as collagen, gelatin, chitosan and hyaluronic acid have been widely investigated; however, these materials present some disadvantages such as low stability in aqueous environment, difficulty to be electrospun or poor mechanical properties. To overcome these limitations, these polymers are often used in combination with synthetic materials such as Poly(lactide–co–glycolide) (PLGA), Poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL), Polyurethane (PU), or Poly(L–lactide) (PLLA); however, using these polymers can reduce scaffolds cytocompatibility and biodegradability (Ladd et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2013; Sundaramurthi et al., 2014). In our work, instead, two natural polymers such as keratin and gelatin were used, thus enhancing these two aspects previously cited. In the future, it will be necessary to investigate how cell culture and extra cellular matrix production may affect the mechanical characteristics of the constructs.
TABLE 3 | Mechanical characterization on electrospun samples results: ↑means direct proportionality, ↓means inverse proportionality, – means that there is no correlation between parameters.
Parameters Elastic modulus Failure stress Failure strain Toughness Voltage ↓ ↓ ↓ % gelatin ↑ ↑ ↑ Electrospinning duration ↑ ↓ ↓ Flow ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓
CONCLUSION
In this paper we showed that waste materials such as keratin hydrolizates derived from chicken feathers can be reused to develop a novel biomaterial, whose chemical, physical and mechanical properties can be tuned varying the gelatin content. Moreover, these materials can be processed by electrospinning system and the mechanical and biological tests showed that they could have promising applications in the tissue engineering, regenerative medicine, and biofabrication areas.
1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254
Fortunato et al. Electrospun Keratin for Tissue Engineering
DATA AVAILABILITY
The datasets generated for this study are available on request to
Q10
the corresponding author.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
GF, FD, and CD: writing—original draft preparation. GF, FD,
Q9
SB, AD, FB, AL, DB, and PB: investigation. CM, GF, CD, and FM: data analysis. PB and GV: conceptualization and funding acquisition.
FUNDING
This work was supported by BIOMEMBRANE project (M- Q7
ERA.NET2 project 4246), by Kerapack project (MANUNET MNET17/NMAT-0060) and by PRA_2018_68 (Grant supported by University of Pisa).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Po.Te.Co s.c.r.l (Santa Croce sull’Arno, Pisa) for kindly performing scanning electron microscopy.
REFERENCES
Balaji, S., Kumar, R., Sripriya, R., Kakkar, P., Ramesh, D. V., Reddy, P. N. K., et al. (2012). Preparation and comparative characterization of keratin-chitosan and keratin-gelatin composite scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 32, 975–982. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2012.02.023
Burnett, L. R., Rahmany, M. B., Richter, J. R., Aboushwareb, T. A., Eberli, D., Ward, C. L., et al. (2013). Hemostatic properties and the role of cell receptor recognition in human hair keratin protein hydrogels. Biomaterials 34, 2632–2640. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.12.022
Carrabba, M., De Maria, C., Oikawa, A., Reni, C., Spencer, H., Slater, S., et al. (2016). Design, fabrication and perivascular implantation of bioactive scaffolds engineered with human adventitial progenitor cells for stimulation of arteriogenesis in peripheral ischemia. Biofabrication 8:015020. doi: 10.1088/1758-5090/8/1/015020
Chang, H., Huang, C., Lin, K., Kao, W., Liao, H., You, Y., et al. (2014). Effect of surface potential on NIH3T3 cell adhesion and proliferation. J. Phys. Chem. C 118, 14464–14470. doi: 10.1021/jp504662c
Chang, H., Kao, W., You, Y., Chu, Y., and Chu, K. (2016). Effect of surface potential on epithelial cell adhesion, proliferation and morphology. Colloids Surfaces B Biointerfaces 141, 179–186. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2016.01.049
Chen, H.-C., Jao, W.-C., and Yang, M.-C. (2009). Characterization of gelatin nanofibers electrospun using ethanol/formic acid/water as a solvent. Polym. Adv. Technol. 20, 98–103. doi: 10.1002/pat.1244
Choktaweesap, N., Arayanarakul, K., Aht-ong, D., Meechaisue, C., and Supaphol, P. (2007). Electrospun gelatin fibers: effect of solvent system on morphology and fiber diameters. Polym. J. 39, 622–631. doi: 10.1295/polymj.PJ2006190 Dai, X., Kathiria, K., and Huang, Y.-C. (2014). Electrospun fiber scaffolds of
poly (glycerol-dodecanedioate) and its gelatin blended polymers for soft tissue engineering.. Biofabrication 6:035005. doi: 10.1088/1758-5082/6/3/035005 De Maria, C., Vozzi, G., and Moroni, L. (2017). Multimaterial, heterogeneous,
and multicellular three-dimensional bioprinting. MRS Bull. 42, 578–584. doi: 10.1557/mrs.2017.165
Dunn, M. G., and Silver, F. H. (1983). Viscoelastic behavior of human connective
Q12
tissues : relative contribution of viscous and elastic components. Connective Tissue Res. 12, 59–70. doi: 10.3109/03008208309005612
Elliott, D. E., Davis, F. J., Mitchell, G. R., and Olley, R. H. (2009). Structure development in electrospun fibres of gelatin. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 183:012021. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/183/1/012021
Jacquemoud, C., Bruyere-garnier, K., and Coret, M. (2007). Methodology to
Q12
determine failure characteristics of planar soft tissues using a dynamic tensile test. J. Biomech. 40, 468–475. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.12.010
Kamra, T., Chaudhary, S., Xu, C., Johansson, N., and Montelius, L. (2015). Covalent immobilization of molecularly imprinted polymer nanoparticles using an epoxy silane. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 445, 277–284. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2014.12.086
Khatyr, F., Imberdis, C., Vescovo, P., Varchon, D., and Lagarde, J. (2004). Model of
Q12
the viscoelastic behaviour of skin in vivo and study of anisotropy. Skin Res Technol. 10, 96–103. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0846.2004.00057.x
Ki, C. S., Baek, D. H., Gang, K. D., Lee, K. H., Um, I. C., and Park, Y. H. (2005). Characterization of gelatin nanofiber prepared from gelatin–formic
Q12
acid solution. Polymer 46, 5094–5102. doi: 10.1016/j.polymer.2005.04.040
Ladd, M. R., Hill, T. K., Yoo, J. J., and Lee, S. J. (2012). “Electrospun nanofibers Q13
in tissue engineering,” in Nanofibers—Production, Properties and Functional Applications (Wake Forest School of Medicine).
Liu, H., Ding, X., Zhou, G., Li, P., Wei, X., and Fan, Y. (2013). Electrospinning of nanofibers for tissue engineering applications. J. Nanomater. 2013, 1–11. doi: 10.1155/2013/495708
Mindru, T. B., Mindru, I. B., Malutan, T., and Tura, V. (2007). Electrospinning of Q14
high concentration gelatin solutions. J. Optoelectronics Adv. Mater. 9, 3633–3638.
Moroni, L., Boland, T., Burdick, J. A., De Maria, C., Derby, B., Forgacs, G., et al. (2017). Biofabrication : a guide to technology and terminology. Trends Biotechnol. 36, 384–402. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.10.015
Nguyen, T.-H. (2010). Fabrication and characterization of cross-linked Q12
gelatin electro-spun nano-fibers. J. Biomed. Sci. Eng. 3, 1117–1124. doi: 10.4236/jbise.2010.312145
Ní, A., Bruyère, K., Destrade, M., and Gilchrist, M. D. (2012). Characterization of Q12
the anisotropic mechanical properties of excised human skin. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 5, 139–148. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2011.08.016
O’Brien, F. J., Harley, B. A., Yannas, I. V., and Gibson, L. J. (2005). The effect of pore size on cell adhesion in collagen-GAG scaffolds. Biomaterials 26, 433–441. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.02.052
Prasong, S., and Wasan, T. (2011). Preparation and characterization of hair keratin/gelatin blend films. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 14, 351–356.
Rosaria, M., Guido, E., Colleoni, C., and Rosace, G. (2017). Effect of GPTMS functionalization on the improvement of the pH-sensitive methyl red photostability. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 238, 281–291. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2016.07.050
Rouse, J. G., and Van Dyke, M. E. (2010). A review of keratin-based biomaterials for biomedical applications. Materials 3, 999–1014. doi: 10.3390/ma3020999 Saravanan, S., Sameera, D. K., Moorthi, A., and Selvamurugan, N. (2013).
Chitosan scaffolds containing chicken feather keratin nanoparticles for bone tissue engineering. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 62, 481–486. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2013.09.034
Saul, J. M., Ellenburg, M. D., De Guzman, R. C., and Van Dyke, M. (2011). Keratin hydrogels support the sustained release of bioactive ciprofloxacin. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 98, 544–553. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.33147
Soliman, S., Pagliari, S., Rinaldi, A., Forte, G., Fiaccavento, R., Pagliari, F., et al. (2010). Acta Biomaterialia Multiscale three-dimensional scaffolds for soft tissue engineering via multimodal electrospinning. Acta Biomater. 6, 1227–1237. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.10.051
Song, J.-H., Kim, H.-E., and Kim, H.-W. (2008). Production of electrospun gelatin Q12
nanofiber by water-based co-solvent approach.. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 19, 95–102. doi: 10.1007/s10856-007-3169-4
Sreerekha, P. R., Menon, D., V., Nair, S., and Chennazhi, K. P. (2013). Fabrication of fibrin based electrospun multiscale composite scaffold for tissue engineering applications. J. Biomed. Nanotechnol. 9, 790–800. doi: 10.1166/jbn.2013.1585 Staroszczyk, H., and Sinkiewicz, I. (2017). Alternative methods of preparation
of soluble keratin from chicken feathers. Waste Biomass Valorization 8, 1043–1048. doi: 10.1007/s12649-016-9678-y
Subbiah, T., Bhat, G. S., Tock, R. W., Parameswaran, S., and Ramkumar, S. S. (2005). Electrospinning of nanofibers. J. Appl. Polymer Sci. 96, 557–569. doi: 10.1002/app.21481
1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 Sundaramurthi, D., Krishnan, U. M., and Sethuraman, S. (2014).
Electrospun nanofibers as scaffolds for skin tissue engineering. Polym. Rev. 54, 348–376. doi: 10.1080/15583724.2014.8 81374
Tamrin Nuge, M. E. H. (2013). Electrospinning of gelatin nanofibre: current trends in tissue engineering applications. J. Appl. Mech. Eng. 2, 9873. doi: 10.4172/2168-9873.1000e122
Tsuda, Y., and Nomura, Y. (2014). Properties of alkaline-hydrolyzed waterfowl feather keratin. Anim Sci J. 85, 180–185. doi: 10.1111/asj. 12093
Vozzi, G., and Ahluwalia, A. (2007). Microfabrication for tissue engineering: rethinking the cells-on-a scaffold approach. J. Mater. Chem. 17, 1248–1254. doi: 10.1039/B613511K
Wang, S., Taraballi, F., Tan, L. P., and Ng, K. W. (2012). Human keratin hydrogels support fibroblast attachment and proliferation in vitro. Cell Tissue Res. 347, 795–802. doi: 10.1007/s00441-011-1295-2
Yamauchi, K., Yamauchi, A., Kusunoki, T., Kohda, A., and Konishi, Y. (1996). Preparation of stable aqueous solution of keratins, and physiochemical and biodegradational properties of films. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 31, 439–444. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199608)31:4<439::AID-JBM1>3.0.CO;2-M Yang, T. L. (2011). Chitin-based materials in tissue engineering: applications
in soft tissue and epithelial organ. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 12, 1936–1963. doi: 10.3390/ijms12031936
Zeltinger, J., Sherwood, J. K., Graham, D. A., Müeller, R., and Griffith, L. G. (2001). Effect of pore size and void fraction on cellular aadhesion, proliferation, and matrix deposition. Tissue Eng. 7, 557–572. doi: 10.1089/107632701753213183 Zhan, J., and Lan, P. (2012). The review on electrospun gelatin fiber scaffold. J. Res.
Updates Polymer Sci. 1, 59–71. doi: 10.6000/1929-5995.2012.01.02.1
Zhang, Y., Ouyang, H., Lim, C. T., Ramakrishna, S., and Huang, Z.-M. (2005). Electrospinning of gelatin fibers and gelatin/PCL composite fibrous scaffolds. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B. Appl. Biomater. 72, 156–165. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.30128 Zhang, Z., Ortiz, O., Goyal, R., and Kohn, J. (2014). Chapter 23—Biodegradable
Polymers, 4th Edn. Elsevier. Q15
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2019 Fortunato, Da Ros, Bisconti, De Acutis, Biagini, Lapomarda, Magliaro, De Maria, Montemurro, Bizzotto, Braghetta and Vozzi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
