Loading…

Proliferation of seeded urothelial and smooth muscle cells on different collagen scaffolds and commercially available small intestinal submucosa

PURPOSE Different scaffolds have been used for bladder wall regeneration. In search for better materials we have developed collagen scaffolds and compared the in-vitro viability and proliferation of seeded urothelial and smooth muscle cells on 3 different collagen scaffolds and the commercially avai...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of pediatric urology 2007, Vol.3, p.S57-S57
Main Author: Luc ROELOFS, Jody NUININGA, Herman VAN MOERKERK , Willeke DAAMEN , Egbert OOSTERWIJK, Toin VAN KUPPEVELT and Wout FEITZ
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:PURPOSE Different scaffolds have been used for bladder wall regeneration. In search for better materials we have developed collagen scaffolds and compared the in-vitro viability and proliferation of seeded urothelial and smooth muscle cells on 3 different collagen scaffolds and the commercially available small intestinal submucosa (SIS® ). MATERIAL AND METHODS The collagen scaffolds were created of bovine collagen type I, and chemically cross-linked: 1) porous scaffold; 2) dual-layer scaffold, combining a film-layer with a porous layer; 3) porous scaffold with one side closed. Urothelial cells (SCaBER cell line) and smooth muscle cells (PM151T cell line) were separately seeded on the collagen and SIS® scaffolds, and cultured under standard conditions. After 3, 7, 14 and 21 days cell viability and proliferation was analysed with the WST-1 assay. Univariate ANOVA test was used for statistical analysis. Seeded scaffolds were paraffin embedded and analyzed by H&E, cytokeratins AE1/AE3, E-cadherin, α-smooth muscle actin and desmin staining. RESULTS Progressive growth of seeded cells was observed on all scaffolds. Collagen scaffolds showed better proliferation and viability of cells in comparison to SIS® (p 
ISSN:1477-5131
1873-4898
DOI:10.1016/j.jpurol.2007.01.095