In this study, we investigated the effects of human primary chondrocytes, derived from routine septorhino- and otoplasties on a novel nondegradable biomaterial. This biomaterial, porous bacterial nanocellulose, is produced by Gluconacetobacter xylinus. Porosity is generated by paraffin beads embedded during the fermentation process. Human primary chondrocytes were able to adhere to bacterial nanocellulose and produce cartilaginous matrix proteins such as aggrecan (after 14 days) and collagen type II (after 21 days) in the presence of differentiation medium. Cells were located within the pores and in a dense cell layer covering the surface of the biomaterial. Cells were able to re-differentiate, as cell shape and extra cellular matrix gene expression showed a chondrogenic phenotype in three-dimensional bacterial nanocellulose culture. Collagen type I and versican expression decreased during three-dimensional culture. Variations in pore sizes of 150–300 µm and 300–500 µm did not influence cartilaginous extra cellular matrix synthesis. Varying seeding densities from 9.95 × 102 to 1.99 × 103 cells/mm2 and 3.98 × 103 cells/mm2 did not result in differences in quality of extra cellular matrix neo-synthesis. Our results demonstrated that both nasal and auricular chondrocytes are equally suitable to synthesize new extra cellular matrix on bacterial nanocellulose. Therefore, we propose both cell sources in combination with bacterial nanocellulose as promising candidates for the special needs of auricular reconstruction.
RotterNBuchelerMHaischA. Cartilage tissue engineering using resorbable scaffolds. J Tissue Eng Regen Med2007; 1(6): 411–416.
2.
CiorbaAMartiniA. Tissue engineering and cartilage regeneration for auricular reconstruction. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol2006; 70(9): 1507–1515.
3.
NagataS. Modification of the stages in total reconstruction of the auricle: Part IV. Ear elevation for the constructed auricle. Plast Reconstr Surg1994; 93(2): 254–266.
4.
RettingerG. Autogenous and allogeneic cartilage transplants in head and neck surgery (excluding middle ear and trachea). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Suppl1992; 1: 127–162.
5.
BicharaDAO'SullivanNAPomerantsevaI. The tissue-engineered auricle: past, present, and future. Tissue Eng Part B Rev2012; 18(1): 51–61.
6.
OharaKNakamuraKOhtaE. Chest wall deformities and thoracic scoliosis after costal cartilage graft harvesting. Plast Reconstr Surg1997; 99(4): 1030–1036.
7.
MakeenK. Total reconstruction of the auricle in lobule-type microtia. Egypt J Plast Reconstr Surg2003; 27(2): 225–230.
8.
HaischAKlaringSGrogerA. A tissue-engineering model for the manufacture of auricular-shaped cartilage implants. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol2002; 259(6): 316–321.
9.
HutmacherDW. Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials2000; 21(24): 2529–2543.
10.
HaischA. Ear reconstruction through tissue engineering. Adv Otorhinolaryngol2010; 68: 108–119.
BartlettWSkinnerJAGoodingCR. Autologous chondrocyte implantation versus matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation for osteochondral defects of the knee: a prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br2005; 87(5): 640–645.
RampichovaMKostakovaEFilovaE. Non-woven PGA/PVA fibrous mesh as an appropriate scaffold for chondrocyte proliferation. Physiol Res2010; 59(5): 773–781.
15.
AnderssonJStenhamreHBackdahlH. Behavior of human chondrocytes in engineered porous bacterial cellulose scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A2010; 94(4): 1124–1132.
HigginsSPSolanAKNiklasonLE. Effects of polyglycolic acid on porcine smooth muscle cell growth and differentiation. J Biomed Mater Res A2003; 67(1): 295–302.
18.
NeidelJZeidlerU. Independent effects of interleukin 1 on proteoglycan synthesis and proteoglycan breakdown of bovine articular cartilage in vitro. Agents Actions1993; 39(1–2): 82–90.
19.
RotterNUngFRoyAK. Role for interleukin 1 alpha in the inhibition of chondrogenesis in autologous implants using polyglycolic acid-polylactic acid scaffolds. Tissue Eng2005; 11(1–2): 192–200.
20.
MiyamotoTTakahashiSItoH. Tissue biocompatibility of cellulose and its derivatives. J Biomed Mater Res1989; 23(1): 125–133.
21.
BodinAGustafssonLGatenholmP. Surface-engineered bacterial cellulose as template for crystallization of calcium phosphate. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed2006; 17(4): 435–447.
22.
BackdahlHEsguerraMDelbroD. Engineering microporosity in bacterial cellulose scaffolds. J Tissue Eng Regen Med2008; 2(6): 320–330.
23.
BackdahlHHeleniusGBodinA. Mechanical properties of bacterial cellulose and interactions with smooth muscle cells. Biomaterials2006; 27(9): 2141–2149.
24.
LiZYanZChenS. Preparation for and study on the property of medical bacterial cellulose. Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi2012; 29(1): 164–169.
25.
KlemmDKramerFMoritzS. Nanocelluloses: a new family of nature-based materials. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl2011; 50(24): 5438–5466.
26.
CzajaWKrystynowiczABieleckiS. Microbial cellulose: the natural power to heal wounds. Biomaterials2006; 27(2): 145–151.
27.
Liu J, Li Y, Rong X, et al. Application of crystalline cellulose membrane (Veloderm(R)) on split-thickness skin graft donor sites in burn or reconstructive plastic surgery patients. J Burn Care Res 2012, DOI:10.1097/BCR.0b013e.31825d5d8d.
28.
Park SU, Lee BK, Kim MS, et al. The possibility of microbial cellulose for dressing and scaffold materials. Int Wound J 2012 DOI:10.1111/j.1742-481X.2012.01035.x.
29.
MalmCJRisbergBBodinA. Small calibre biosynthetic bacterial cellulose blood vessels: 13-months patency in a sheep model. Scand Cardiovasc J2012; 46(1): 57–62.
30.
AndradeFKCostaRDominguesL. Improving bacterial cellulose for blood vessel replacement: Functionalization with a chimeric protein containing a cellulose-binding module and an adhesion peptide. Acta Biomater2010; 6(10): 4034–4041.
31.
MatsuokaMTsuchidaTMatsushitaK. Synthetic medium for bacterial cellulose production by Acetobacter xylinum subsp. sucrofermentation. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem1996; 60(4): 575–579.
32.
International Organization of Standardization. ISO 10993-5.EN ISO10993. ISO 10993-5:2009 Biological evaluation of medical devices – Part 5:Tests for in vitro cytotoxicity, 2009.
33.
von der MarkKGaussVvon der MarkH. Relationship between cell shape and type of collagen synthesised as chondrocytes lose their cartilage phenotype in culture. Nature1977; 267(5611): 531–532.
34.
SvenssonANicklassonEHarrahT. Bacterial cellulose as a potential scaffold for tissue engineering of cartilage. Biomaterials2005; 26(4): 419–431.
35.
HeleniusGBackdahlHBodinA. In vivo biocompatibility of bacterial cellulose. J Biomed Mater Res A2006; 76(2): 431–438.
36.
BodinABackdahlHFinkH. Influence of cultivation conditions on mechanical and morphological properties of bacterial cellulose tubes. Biotechnol Bioeng2007; 97(2): 425–434.
37.
BackdahlHEsguerraMDelbroD. Engineering microporosity in bacterial cellulose scaffolds. J Tissue Eng Regen Med2008; 2(6): 320–330.
38.
NuernbergerSCyranNAlbrechtC. The influence of scaffold architecture on chondrocyte distribution and behavior in matrix-associated chondrocyte transplantation grafts. Biomaterials2011; 32(4): 1032–1040.
39.
HomiczMRChiaSHSchumacherBL. Human septal chondrocyte redifferentiation in alginate, polyglycolic acid scaffold, and monolayer culture. Laryngoscope2003; 113(1): 25–32.
40.
NehrerSBreinanHARamappaA. Matrix collagen type and pore size influence behaviour of seeded canine chondrocytes. Biomaterials1997; 18(11): 769–776.
41.
StenhamreHNannmarkULindahlA. Influence of pore size on the redifferentiation potential of human articular chondrocytes in poly(urethane urea) scaffolds. J Tissue Eng Regen Med2011; 5(7): 578–588.
42.
OhSHParkIKKimJM. In vitro and in vivo characteristics of PCL scaffolds with pore size gradient fabricated by a centrifugation method. Biomaterials2007; 28(9): 1664–1671.
43.
Emans PJ, Jansen EJ, van Iersel D, et al. Tissue-engineered constructs: the effect of scaffold architecture in osteochondral repair. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 2012. DOI: 10.1002/term.1477.
LiuLWangYGuoS. Porous polycaprolactone/nanohydroxyapatite tissue engineering scaffolds fabricated by combining NaCl and PEG as co-porogens: structure, property, and chondrocyte-scaffold interaction in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater2012; 100(4): 956–966.
46.
FreedLEMarquisJCLangerR. Composition of cell-polymer cartilage implants. Biotechnol Bioeng1994; 43(7): 605–614.
47.
MartinIWendtDHebererM. The role of bioreactors in tissue engineering. Trends Biotechnol2004; 22(2): 80–86.
48.
TayAGFarhadiJSuetterlinR. Cell yield, proliferation, and postexpansion differentiation capacity of human ear, nasal, and rib chondrocytes. Tissue Eng2004; 10(5–6): 762–770.
49.
BodinAAhrenstedtLFinkH. Modification of nanocellulose with a xyloglucan-RGD conjugate enhances adhesion and proliferation of endothelial cells: implications for tissue engineering. Biomacromolecules2007; 8(12): 3697–3704.
50.
FinkHAhrenstedtLBodinA. Bacterial cellulose modified with xyloglucan bearing the adhesion peptide RGD promotes endothelial cell adhesion and metabolism: a promising modification for vascular grafts. J Tissue Eng Regen Med2011; 5(6): 454–463.
51.
SteinGSLianJBOwenTA. Relationship of cell growth to the regulation of tissue-specific gene expression during osteoblast differentiation. FASEB J1990; 4(13): 3111–3123.
52.
KleinmanHKKlebeRJMartinGR. Role of collagenous matrices in the adhesion and growth of cells. J Cell Biol1981; 88(3): 473–485.
53.
WoodsAWangGBeierF. Regulation of chondrocyte differentiation by the actin cytoskeleton and adhesive interactions. J Cell Physiol2007; 213(1): 1–8.
54.
HotulainenPLappalainenP. Stress fibers are generated by two distinct actin assembly mechanisms in motile cells. J Cell Biol2006; 173(3): 383–394.
55.
SchuhEHofmannSStokK. Chondrocyte redifferentiation in 3D: the effect of adhesion site density and substrate elasticity. J Biomed Mater Res A2012; 100(1): 38–47.
