In this ground-breaking study, we sought to create superior tubular scaffolds for tissue engineering by utilizing small intestine submucosa (SIS), a remarkable biomaterial with outstanding therapeutic potential. We investigated two standard detergent-perfusion procedures, peracetic acid under perfusion and classic peracetic acid-agitation, to decellularize tubular SIS, with the goal of generating scaffolds with consistent and reliable properties for oesophageal tissue engineering. To assess biocompatibility, we employed metabolic research, microscopy, mechanical tests, and DNA quantification. Unfortunately, the peracetic acid methods proved ineffective, producing poor mechanical characteristics or insufficient decellularization. However, our detergent-based methods yielded highly effective results with no adverse mechanical consequences. While SDS/Triton X-100 was the most successful detergent-based technique, we discovered that it caused a decrease in metabolic activity and cytotoxicity. Thus, we highly recommend the use of the detergent SD, which demonstrated superior biocompatibility, with the additional suggestion of eliminating the DNase enzyme. This study enhances our understanding of tubular SIS decellularization and highlights the importance of utilizing appropriate detergent-based procedures for tissue engineering applications.
Keywords: Small intestine submucosa, Decellularization, biocompatible, DNA quantification
[This article belongs to Special Issue under section in Journal of Polymer and Composites(jopc)]
1. Y. Zhang et al., “TWEAK/Fn14 signaling may function as a reactive compensatory mechanism against extracellular matrix accumulation in keloid fibroblasts,” European Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 102, no. 2, p. 151290, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ejcb.2023.151290.
2. C. Wang et al., “Decellularized brain extracellular matrix slice glioblastoma culture model recapitulates the interaction between cells and the extracellular matrix without a nutrient-oxygen gradient interference,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 158, pp. 132–150, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.12.044.
3. M. Li, Y. Zhang, Q. Zhang, and J. Li, “Tumor extracellular matrix modulating strategies for enhanced antitumor therapy of nanomedicines,” Materials Today Bio, vol. 16, no. July, p. 100364, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2022.100364.
4. G. S. van Tienderen et al., “Tumor decellularization reveals proteomic and mechanical characteristics of the extracellular matrix of primary liver cancer,” Biomaterials Advances, vol. 146, no. October 2022, p. 213289, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2023.213289.
5. A. Carrasco-Mantis, T. Alarcón, and J. A. Sanz-Herrera, “An in silico study on the influence of extracellular matrix mechanics on vasculogenesis,” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 231, p. 107369, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107369.
6. S. Karlsson and H. Nyström, “The extracellular matrix in colorectal cancer and its metastatic settling – Alterations and biological implications,” Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, vol. 175, no. December 2021, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2022.103712.
7. H. Singh, S. D. Purohit, R. Bhaskar, I. Yadav, M. K. Gupta, and N. C. Mishra, “Development of decellularization protocol for caprine small intestine submucosa as a biomaterial,” Biomaterials and Biosystems, vol. 5, no. September 2021, p. 100035, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.bbiosy.2021.100035.
8. Y. T. Song et al., “Application of antibody-conjugated small intestine submucosa to capture urine-derived stem cells for bladder repair in a rabbit model,” Bioactive Materials, vol. 14, no. August 2021, pp. 443–455, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.11.017.
9. R. Zhukauskas, D. N. Fischer, C. Deister, N. Z. Alsmadi, and D. Mercer, “A Comparative Study of Porcine Small Intestine Submucosa and Cross-Linked Bovine Type I Collagen as a Nerve Conduit,” Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 282–288, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2021.06.006.
10. H. Kanda, K. Oya, T. Irisawa, Wahyudiono, and M. Goto, “Tensile strength of ostrich carotid artery decellularized with liquefied dimethyl ether and DNase: An effort in addressing religious and cultural concerns,” Arabian Journal of Chemistry, vol. 16, no. 4, p. 104578, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.arabjc.2023.104578.
11. M. Tao et al., “Sterilization and disinfection methods for decellularized matrix materials: Review, consideration and proposal,” Bioactive Materials, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 2927–2945, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.02.010.
12. M. S. Massaro, R. Pálek, J. Rosendorf, L. Červenková, V. Liška, and V. Moulisová, “Decellularized xenogeneic scaffolds in transplantation and tissue engineering: Immunogenicity versus positive cell stimulation,” Materials Science and Engineering C, vol. 127, no. February, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2021.112203.
13. X. Zhang, X. Chen, H. Hong, R. Hu, J. Liu, and C. Liu, “Decellularized extracellular matrix scaffolds: Recent trends and emerging strategies in tissue engineering,” Bioactive Materials, vol. 10, no. August 2021, pp. 15–31, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.09.014.
14. K. H. Schneider et al., “Riboflavin-mediated photooxidation to improve the characteristics of decellularized human arterial small diameter vascular grafts,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 116, pp. 246–258, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.08.037.
15. J. Duisit et al., “Perfusion-decellularization of human ear grafts enables ECM-based scaffolds for auricular vascularized composite tissue engineering,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 73, pp. 339–354, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.04.009.
|Received||March 6, 2023|
|Accepted||July 25, 2023|
|Published||August 18, 2023|