In Vitro and In Vivo Comparison of Engineered Cartilage Constructed by Co-Culture Bone Marrow Stromal Cells and Chondrocytes

ZHOU Guangdong,MIAO Chunlei,LIU Xia,CUI Lei,LIU Wei,CAO Yilin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1673-0364.2007.01.007
2007-01-01
Abstract:Objective To construct cartilage by co-culture of bone marrow stromal cells(BMSCs) and chondrocytes and to compare cartilage-related characteristic differences of engineered cartilage before and after in vivo implantation,exploring the feasibility of clinical application.Methods Porcine articular chondrocytes and BMSCs were expanded respectively and were mixed at the ratio of 2∶8(chondrocyte:BMSC) .The mixed cells were seeded onto polyactic acid coated polyglycolic acid scaffolds at the ultimate concentration of 5.0×107 cells/ml to form cell-scaffold constructs.The constructs were cultured in vitro for 8 weeks for chondrogenesis and then some specimens were implanted into nude mouse subcutaneously.The specimens were collected after 8 weeks in vivo implantation.Gross observation,glycosaminoglycan(GAG) quantification,biomechanical test,and histology were used to compare cartilage-related characteristic differences of engineered cartilage before and after in vivo implantation.Results All the specimens formed cartilage-like tissue after 8 weeks' in vitro culture,except for a weak intension and incompact tissue structure.After 8 weeks in vivo implantation,the engineered cartilage still maintained their cartilage-like appearance,furthermore,the GAG content and compressive modulus of in vivo specimens were higher than those of in vitro specimens with significant difference(p<0.01) .Histology and immunohistochemistry demonstrated that the in vivo specimens showed a compact tissue structure and the cartilage matrix staining of in vivo specimens were stronger than that of in vitro specimens.Conclusion The engineered cartilage constructed by co-culture of BMSCs and chondrocytes can maintain fine cartilage characteristic in subcutaneous environment.Furthermore,in vivo implantation seems to promote further maturation of engineered cartilage.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?