loading page

Cell-derived and enzyme-based decellularized extracellular matrix exhibit compositional and structural differences that are relevant for its use as a biomaterial
  • +6
  • Svenja Nellinger,
  • Ivana Mrsic,
  • Silke Keller,
  • Simon Heine,
  • Alexander Southan,
  • Monika Bach,
  • Ann-Cathrin Volz,
  • Thomas Chassé,
  • Petra Kluger
Svenja Nellinger
Reutlingen University

Corresponding Author:svenja.nellinger@reutlingen-university.de

Author Profile
Ivana Mrsic
University of Tübingen
Author Profile
Silke Keller
University of Stuttgart
Author Profile
Simon Heine
Reutlingen University
Author Profile
Alexander Southan
University of Stuttgart
Author Profile
Monika Bach
University of Hohenheim
Author Profile
Ann-Cathrin Volz
Reutlingen University
Author Profile
Thomas Chassé
University of Tübingen
Author Profile
Petra Kluger
Reutlingen University
Author Profile

Abstract

Due to its availability and minimal invasive harvesting human adipose tissue-derived extracellular matrix (dECM) is often used as a biomaterial in various tissue engineering and healthcare applications. Next to dECM, cell-derived ECM (cdECM) can be generated by and isolated from in vitro cultured cells. So far both types of ECM were investigated extensively towards their application as (bio)material in tissue engineering and healthcare. However, a systematic characterization and comparison of soft tissue dECM and cdECM is still missing. In this study, we characterized dECM from human adipose tissue, as well as cdECM from human adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs), towards their molecular composition, structural characteristics, and biological purity. The dECM was found to exhibit higher levels of collagens and lower levels of sulfated glycosaminoglycans (sGAGs) compared to cdECMs. Structural characteristics revealed an immature state of the fibrous part of cdECM samples. By the identified differences, we aim to support researchers in the selection of a suitable ECM-based biomaterial for their specific application and the interpretation of obtained results.
20 Oct 2021Submitted to Biotechnology and Bioengineering
21 Oct 2021Submission Checks Completed
21 Oct 2021Assigned to Editor
24 Oct 2021Reviewer(s) Assigned
07 Dec 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
07 Dec 2021Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
01 Jan 20221st Revision Received
03 Jan 2022Submission Checks Completed
03 Jan 2022Assigned to Editor
10 Jan 2022Reviewer(s) Assigned
19 Jan 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
19 Jan 2022Editorial Decision: Accept
Apr 2022Published in Biotechnology and Bioengineering volume 119 issue 4 on pages 1142-1156. 10.1002/bit.28047