Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38053846›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2023

Polymeric reinforcements for cellularized collagen-based vascular wall models: influence of the scaffold architecture on the mechanical and biological properties.

Nele Pien, Dalila Di Francesco, Francesco Copes, Michael Bartolf-Kopp, Victor Chausse, Marguerite Meeremans, Marta Pegueroles, Tomasz Jüngst, Catharina De Schauwer, Francesca Boccafoschi and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Nele PienLaboratory for Biomaterials and Bioengineering, Canada Research Chair Tier I for the Innovation in Surgery, Department of Min-Met-Materials Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, CHU de Quebec Research Center, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Dalila Di FrancescoLaboratory for Biomaterials and Bioengineering, Canada Research Chair Tier I for the Innovation in Surgery, Department of Min-Met-Materials Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, CHU de Quebec Research Center, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Francesco CopesLaboratory for Biomaterials and Bioengineering, Canada Research Chair Tier I for the Innovation in Surgery, Department of Min-Met-Materials Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, CHU de Quebec Research Center, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Michael Bartolf-KoppDepartment of Functional Materials in Medicine and Dentistry, Institute of Biofabrication and Functional Materials, University of Würzburg and KeyLab Polymers for Medicine of the Bavarian Polymer Institute (BPI), Würzburg, Germany.
Victor ChausseBiomaterials, Biomechanics and Tissue Engineering Group, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.
Marguerite MeeremansFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Translational Physiology, Infectiology and Public Health, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Marta PeguerolesBiomaterials, Biomechanics and Tissue Engineering Group, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.
Tomasz JüngstDepartment of Functional Materials in Medicine and Dentistry, Institute of Biofabrication and Functional Materials, University of Würzburg and KeyLab Polymers for Medicine of the Bavarian Polymer Institute (BPI), Würzburg, Germany.
Catharina De SchauwerFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Translational Physiology, Infectiology and Public Health, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Francesca BoccafoschiLaboratory of Human Anatomy, Department of Health Sciences, University of Piemonte Orientale "A. Avogadro", Novara, Italy.
Peter DubruelPolymer Chemistry and Biomaterials Group, Centre of Macromolecular Chemistry, Department of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Sandra Van VlierberghePolymer Chemistry and Biomaterials Group, Centre of Macromolecular Chemistry, Department of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Diego MantovaniLaboratory for Biomaterials and Bioengineering, Canada Research Chair Tier I for the Innovation in Surgery, Department of Min-Met-Materials Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, CHU de Quebec Research Center, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Ghent University · BEUniversité Laval · CAUniversità degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro” · ITUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya · ESBavarian Polymer Institute · DEUniversity of Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A previously developed cellularized collagen-based vascular wall model showed promising results in mimicking the biological properties of a native vessel but lacked appropriate mechanical properties. In this work, we aim to improve this collagen-based model by reinforcing it using a tubular polymeric (reinforcement) scaffold. The polymeric reinforcements were fabricated exploiting commercial poly (ε-caprolactone) (PCL), a polymer already used to fabricate other FDA-approved and commercially available devices serving medical applications, through 1) solution electrospinning (SES), 2) 3D printing (3DP) and 3) melt electrowriting (MEW). The non-reinforced cellularized collagen-based model was used as a reference (COL). The effect of the scaffold's architecture on the resulting mechanical and biological properties of the reinforced collagen-based model were evaluated. SEM imaging showed the differences in scaffolds' architecture (fiber alignment, fiber diameter and pore size) at both the micro- and the macrolevel. The polymeric scaffold led to significantly improved mechanical properties for the reinforced collagen-based model (initial elastic moduli of 382.05 ± 132.01 kPa, 100.59 ± 31.15 kPa and 245.78 ± 33.54 kPa, respectively for SES, 3DP and MEW at day 7 of maturation) compared to the non-reinforced collagen-based model (16.63 ± 5.69 kPa). Moreover, on day 7, the developed collagen gels showed stresses (for strains between 20% and 55%) in the range of [5-15] kPa for COL, [80-350] kPa for SES, [20-70] kPa for 3DP and [100-190] kPa for MEW. In addition to the effect on the resulting mechanical properties, the polymeric tubes' architecture influenced cell behavior, in terms of proliferation and attachment, along with collagen gel compaction and extracellular matrix protein expression. The MEW reinforcement resulted in a collagen gel compaction similar to the COL reference, whereas 3DP and SES led to thinner and longer collagen gels. Overall, it can be concluded that 1) the selected processing technique influences the scaffolds' architecture, which in turn influences the resulting mechanical and biological properties, and 2) the incorporation of a polymeric reinforcement leads to mechanical properties closely matching those of native arteries.

Indexed as

3D printingcellularized collagenmelt electrowritingpolymeric reinforcementsolution electrospinningvascular wall model

Identifiers

PMID38053846
PMCPMC10694796
OpenAlexW4388767855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.