The optimal mechanical condition in stem cell-to-tenocyte differentiation determined with the homogeneous strain distributions and the cellular orientation control.
Differentiation
Human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell (hBMSC)
Mechanical stimulus
Tendon
Tenocyte
Tissue engineering
Journal
Biology open
ISSN: 2046-6390
Titre abrégé: Biol Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101578018
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 May 2019
30 May 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
24
5
2019
medline:
24
5
2019
entrez:
24
5
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In tendon tissue engineering, mechanical stimulus-induced differentiation is one of the most attractive techniques for stem cell-to-tenocyte differentiation in terms of cost, safety and simplicity. However, the most effective strain amplitude for differentiation using cyclic stretching remains unknown. Existing studies have not constrained cell reorientation behavior during cyclic stretching, resulting in uncertainty regarding the loads experienced by cells. In addition, strain distribution homogeneity of the culture membrane is important. Here, we improved the strain distribution uniformity of the membrane and employed a microgrooved membrane to suppress cell reorientation. Then we evaluated the most effective strain amplitude (0, 2, 4, 5, 6, or 8%) for the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells into tenocytes by measuring mRNA expression levels. The maximum expression of all tenogenic markers was observed at a 5% strain. These results contribute to tendon tissue engineering by clarifying the most effective strain amplitude during tenogenic differentiation induction using cyclic stretching.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31118166
pii: bio.039164
doi: 10.1242/bio.039164
pmc: PMC6550065
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Informations de copyright
© 2019. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare no competing or financial interests.
Références
Science. 1999 Apr 2;284(5411):143-7
pubmed: 10102814
Cell. 2003 Apr 18;113(2):235-48
pubmed: 12705871
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2003 Oct;18(8):765-72
pubmed: 12957564
Am J Sports Med. 2004 Mar;32(2):435-40
pubmed: 14977670
J Biomech. 2004 Apr;37(4):573-6
pubmed: 14996570
J Biomech. 2004 Oct;37(10):1543-50
pubmed: 15336929
Tissue Eng. 2005 Jan-Feb;11(1-2):41-9
pubmed: 15738660
Ann Biomed Eng. 2005 Mar;33(3):337-42
pubmed: 15868724
J Biomech. 2006;39(9):1563-82
pubmed: 16000201
Tissue Eng. 2006 Jan;12(1):91-9
pubmed: 16499446
J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2006 Apr-Jun;6(2):181-90
pubmed: 16849830
Br J Sports Med. 2007 Aug;41(8):e10; discussion e10
pubmed: 17062654
Connect Tissue Res. 2008;49(1):7-14
pubmed: 18293173
J Anat. 2008 Mar;212(3):211-28
pubmed: 18304204
Mol Cell Biomech. 2007 Dec;4(4):201-10
pubmed: 18437917
J Orthop Res. 2011 Sep;29(9):1351-60
pubmed: 21437969
J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2011 Aug;5(8):e144-63
pubmed: 21548133
J Cell Physiol. 2012 Jun;227(6):2722-9
pubmed: 21898412
Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2012 Aug;18(4):288-300
pubmed: 22335794
Biomaterials. 2013 Mar;34(8):1942-53
pubmed: 23245926
Cell Biochem Biophys. 2013;67(3):1249-59
pubmed: 23703662
Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2013;15(3):71-9
pubmed: 24215499
Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2015 Jun;14(3):649-63
pubmed: 25351891
J Orthop Res. 2015 Jun;33(6):911-8
pubmed: 25664422
Sci Rep. 2015 Aug 20;5:13149
pubmed: 26289033
Mol Cell Biol. 2016 Mar 31;36(8):1297-309
pubmed: 26884464
J Biomech. 2016 Jun 14;49(9):1429-1436
pubmed: 27083058
Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2018;20(1):3-10
pubmed: 29658516
J Orthop Translat. 2017 Mar 18;9:28-42
pubmed: 29662797
Exp Cell Res. 1980 Jun;127(2):470-4
pubmed: 7379874
J Biomech. 1995 Dec;28(12):1543-52
pubmed: 8666593