In Vitro Assessment of the Performance of Collagen-Based Polymer Matrices for Tissue Engineering

Background: The development of materials capable of regenerating damaged tissues and their implementation in medical practice is a promising direction in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.
Objective: To investigate physicomechanical and chemical properties of marine collagen-based matrices for tissue engineering through in vitro experiments.
Materials and methods: The study materials included two experimental marine collagen-based matrices: one was produced using 10% glutaraldehyde as a cross-linking agent (Group 1), while 10% glyoxal was added during the production of the second sample (Group 2). A bovine collagen-based matrix served as the control (Group 3). The deformation degree, sorption capacity, adhesion degree, and pH were determined. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistica 13.0 Pro (Dell Software, USA).
Results: The deformation degree in group 3 was 8.11% lower than in group 1 (Р = .99) and 31.88% lower than in group 2 (Р = .0053). The sorption capacity (mass) in group 3 was 7.2 times higher than in group 1 (Р = .0144) and 18.22 times higher than in group 2 (Р = .0001). The sorption capacity (volume) in group 3 was 4 times higher than in group 1 (Р = .0102) and 7.88 times higher than in group 2 (Р = .0001). The adhesion degree in group 1 was 1.32 times higher than in group 2 (Р ≥ .05) and 1.09 times higher than in group 3 (Р ≥ .05). The pH level in group 3 was 1.12 times higher than in group 1 (Р ≥ .05) and 1.17 times higher than in group 2 (Р = .0383).
Conclusions: The performance analysis revealed numerous shortcomings of the pilot samples with 10% glyoxal, warranting their exclusion from further studies. The samples with 10% glutaraldehyde demonstrated comparable or superior performance to the control group.

1. Vroman I, Tighzert L. Biodegradable polymers. Materials. 2009;2(2):307–344. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma2020307

2. Kuskov AN, Adylina AP, Tikhonova TV, Penkina YuA, Kukharenko AV. Analytical Chemistry: Physico-Chemical Methods of Analysis, Electrochemical Methods. Moskovskii Politekh; 2020. (In Russ.).

3. Gazetdinov RR, Islamova DG. Determination of pH values of aqueous solutions by the method of potentiometry. Zametki uchenogo. 2021;(11–1):198–200. (In Russ.).

4. Panov AA, Lipatov VA, Severinov DA, Denisov AA, Mishustin VN. Comparative assessment of the performance properties of hemostatic applications implants. Humans and Their Health. 2021;24(4):17–23. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21626/vestnik/2021-4/03

5. Lebedeva AI, Maraeva EV. Main trends in the creation of 3D composite scaffolds based on polycaprolactone and hydroxyapatite. Nauka nastoyashchego i budushchego. 2021;1:98–101. (In Russ.).

6. Egorikhina MN, Aleinik DYa, Rubtsova YuP, et al. Scaffold as an artificial niche for mesenchymal stem cells. Genes & Cells. 2022;17(3):82–83. (In Russ.).

7. Marolt Presen D, Traweger A, Gimona M, Redl H. Mesenchymal stromal cell-based bone regeneration therapies: from cell transplantation and tissue engineering to therapeutic secretomes and extracellular vesicles. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:352. PMID: 31828066. PMCID: PMC6890555. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00352

8. Kurkov AV, Guller AE, Istranov LP, et al. Structural and mechanical features, biocompatibility, biodegradation and tissue response to implantation of collagen scaffolds for tissue engineering. Genes & Cells. 2019;14(S):132. (In Russ.).

9. Sundar G, Joseph J, C P, John A, Abraham A. Natural collagen bioscaffolds for skin tissue engineering strategies in burns: a critical review. International Journal of Polymeric Materials and Polymeric Biomaterials. 2021;70(9):593–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/00914037.2020.1740991

10. Fayzullin AL, Shekhter AB, Istranov LP, et al. Bioresorbable collagen materials in surgery: 50 years of success. Sechenov Medical Journal. 2020;11(1):59–70. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.47093/2218-7332.2020.11.1.59-70

11. Murphy CM, Haugh MG, O’Brien FJ. The effect of mean pore size on cell attachment, proliferation and migration in collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2010;31(3):461–466. PMID: 19819008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.09.063

12. Badylak SF, Freytes DO, Gilbert TW. Extracellular matrix as a biological scaffold material: structure and function. Acta Biomater. 2009;5(1):1–13. PMID: 18938117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2008.09.013

13. Derwin KA, Baker AR, Spragg RK, Leigh DR, Iannotti JP. Commercial extracellular matrix scaffolds for rotator cuff tendon repair. Biomechanical, biochemical, and cellular properties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(12):2665–2672. PMID: 17142417. https:// doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.E.01307

14. Liu B, Tan XY, Liu YP, et al. The adjuvant use of stromal vascular fraction and platelet-rich fibrin for autologous adipose tissue transplantation. Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2013;19(1):1–14. PMID: 22681647. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEC.2012.0126

15. Brown B, Lindberg K, Reing J, Stolz DB, Badylak SF. The basement membrane component of biologic scaffolds derived from extracellular matrix. Tissue Eng. 2006;12(3):519–526. PMID: 16579685. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.2006.12.519

16. Polyakov A. V., Bogdanov S. B., Marchenko D. N. On the issue of treating donor wounds using cellular technologies and vacuum therapy. Innovative Medicine of Kuban. 2018.;4(12):34–38 (In Russ.).

17. Kotkas, I. E., Zemlyanoy V. P. Evaluation of the improvement of the regenerative capacity of liver tissue using cellular technologies after liver resection. Innovative Medicine of Kuban. 2020;№ 2(18): 51–56. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.35401/2500-0268-2020-18-2-51-56

18. Melkonyan K. I., Rusinova T. V., Asyakina A. S. Development and experimental justification of the use of acellular dermal matrix for hernioplasty of the anterior abdominal wall. Innovative Medicine of Kuban. 2023;8(3):71–79. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.35401/2541-9897-2023-26-3-71-79