title: The performance of silk scaffolds in a rat model of augmentation cystoplasty.
abstract: The diverse processing plasticity of silk-based biomaterials offers a versatile platform for understanding the impact of structural and mechanical matrix properties on bladder regenerative processes. Three distinct groups of 3-D matrices were fabricated from aqueous solutions of Bombyx mori silk fibroin either by a gel spinning technique (GS1 and GS2 groups) or a solvent-casting/salt-leaching method in combination with silk film casting (FF group). SEM analyses revealed that GS1 matrices consisted of smooth, compact multi-laminates of parallel-oriented silk fibers while GS2 scaffolds were composed of porous (pore size range, 5-50 μm) lamellar-like sheets buttressed by a dense outer layer. Bi-layer FF scaffolds were comprised of porous foams (pore size, ~400 μm) fused on their external face with a homogenous, nonporous silk film. Silk groups and small intestinal submucosa (SIS) matrices were evaluated in a rat model of augmentation cystoplasty for 10 weeks of implantation and compared to cystotomy controls. Gross tissue evaluations revealed the presence of intra-luminal stones in all experimental groups. The incidence and size of urinary calculi was the highest in animals implanted with gel spun silk matrices and SIS with frequencies ≥57% and stone diameters of 3-4 mm. In contrast, rats augmented with FF scaffolds displayed substantially lower rates (20%) and stone size (2 mm), similar to the levels observed in controls (13%, 2 mm). Histological (hematoxylin and eosin, Masson's trichrome) and immunohistochemical (IHC) analyses showed comparable extents of smooth muscle regeneration and contractile protein (α-smooth muscle actin and SM22α) expression within defect sites supported by all matrix groups similar to controls. Parallel evaluations demonstrated the formation of a transitional, multi-layered urothelium with prominent uroplakin and p63 protein expression in all experimental groups. De novo innervation and vascularization processes were evident in all regenerated tissues indicated by Fox3-positive neuronal cells and vessels lined with CD31 expressing endothelial cells. In comparison to other biomaterial groups, cystometric analyses at 10 weeks post-op revealed that animals implanted with the FF matrix configuration displayed superior urodynamic characteristics including compliance, functional capacity, as well as spontaneous non voiding contractions consistent with control levels. Our data demonstrate that variations in scaffold processing techniques can influence the in vivo functional performance of silk matrices in bladder reconstructive procedures.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Urological Diseases Research Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
authors.forename: Abhishek
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Seth
authors.forename: Yeun Goo
authors.initials: YG
authors.lastname: Chung
authors.forename: Eun Seok
authors.initials: ES
authors.lastname: Gil
authors.forename: Duong
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Tu
authors.forename: Debra
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Franck
authors.forename: Dolores
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Di Vizio
authors.forename: Rosalyn M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Adam
authors.forename: David L
authors.initials: DL
authors.lastname: Kaplan
authors.forename: Carlos R
authors.initials: CR
authors.lastname: Estrada
authors.forename: Joshua R
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Mauney
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena / Q000187:drug effects; D005260:Female; D007150:Immunohistochemistry; D023421:Models, Animal; D051381:Rats; D017207:Rats, Sprague-Dawley; D019651:Plastic Surgery Procedures / Q000379:methods*; D012038:Regeneration / Q000187:drug effects; D047011:Silk / Q000494:pharmacology*; D054457:Tissue Scaffolds / Q000737:chemistry*; D001743:Urinary Bladder / Q000294:innervation / Q000473:pathology / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D014545:Urinary Calculi / Q000473:pathology / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery; D014563:Urodynamics / Q000187:drug effects; D013520:Urologic Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods*
chemical_list: D047011:Silk
references.citation: J Vis Exp. 2012 Aug 09;(66):
references.pmid: 22907252
references.citation: Biomaterials. 2009 Jul;30(19):3259-70
references.pmid: 19345408
references.citation: Urologe A. 2011 Nov;50(11):1420-5
references.pmid: 21720832
references.citation: Biomaterials. 2005 May;26(15):2775-85
references.pmid: 15585282
references.citation: J Urol. 2003 Oct;170(4 Pt 2):1633-8
references.pmid: 14501679
references.citation: Nat Biotechnol. 1999 Feb;17(2):149-55
references.pmid: 10052350
references.citation: Urology. 2003 Nov;62(5 Suppl 2):28-37; discussion 40-2
references.pmid: 14662404
references.citation: J Cell Biol. 2004 Dec 20;167(6):1195-204
references.pmid: 15611339
references.citation: Pediatr Surg Int. 2012 Apr;28(4):421-8
references.pmid: 22350082
references.citation: Biomaterials. 2003 Feb;24(3):401-16
references.pmid: 12423595
references.citation: Biomaterials. 2011 Oct;32(30):7562-70
references.pmid: 21764119
references.citation: Tissue Eng. 2006 Feb;12(2):301-8
references.pmid: 16548688
references.citation: J Urol. 2009 Oct;182(4 Suppl):1933-8
references.pmid: 19695621
references.citation: PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56237
references.pmid: 23409160
references.citation: J Urol. 2009 Dec;182(6):2814-7
references.pmid: 19837417
references.citation: Biomaterials. 2008 Dec;29(35):4650-7
references.pmid: 18801570
references.citation: J Pediatr Urol. 2008 Oct;4(5):381-5; discussion 386
references.pmid: 18653384
references.citation: World J Urol. 1998;16(4):262-7
references.pmid: 9775425
references.citation: J Urol. 1996 Jan;155(1):374-8
references.pmid: 7490890
references.citation: Biomaterials. 2008 Aug-Sep;29(24-25):3415-28
references.pmid: 18502501
references.citation: Biomaterials. 2011 Jan;32(3):808-18
references.pmid: 20951426
references.citation: Biomaterials. 2007 Feb;28(6):1152-62
references.pmid: 17092555
references.citation: Am J Pathol. 1994 Nov;145(5):1199-207
references.pmid: 7977650
references.citation: Urology. 1995 Sep;46(3):396-400
references.pmid: 7660517
references.citation: Scand J Surg. 2011;100(4):256-63
references.pmid: 22182847
references.citation: Tissue Eng. 2007 Mar;13(3):513-24
references.pmid: 17518600
references.citation: Biomaterials. 2004 Dec;25(27):5821-30
references.pmid: 15172494
references.citation: BJU Int. 2012 May;109(9):1280-93
references.pmid: 22117733
references.citation: J Urol. 2008 Dec;180(6):2323-9
references.pmid: 18930285
references.citation: BJU Int. 2006 Nov;98(5):1100-5
references.pmid: 17034611
references.citation: Lancet. 2006 Apr 15;367(9518):1241-6
references.pmid: 16631879