Differences between Solution and Membrane Forms of Chitosan on the In Vitro Activity of Fibroblasts

Volume: 32 Number: 1 January 1, 2015
  • Bahar Uslu
  • Burcu Biltekin
  • Seçnur Denir
  • Ayhan Bilir
  • Suna Özbaş Turan
  • Jülide Akbuğa
  • Serap Arbak
EN

Differences between Solution and Membrane Forms of Chitosan on the In Vitro Activity of Fibroblasts

Abstract

Background: Chitosan, a linear polysaccharide, has been recently used in biomedical applications. In vitro studies have demonstrated its effect on cellular growth and its stimulatory action on cellular layer formation. Aims: The present study aims to compare the proliferative effects of chitosan in two forms, membranous and solution forms, on Swiss 3T3 mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Study Design: In vitro study. Methods: Three experimental groups were formed: cells were cultured in a normal medium without chitosan (Control Group); cells were cultured either in a medium containing 2.0% chitosan in membranous form (Membrane Group) or chitosan solution at a concentration of 2.0% (Solution Group). Two different methods were used in the experiments: cells cultured on the medium containing chitosan in solution or membranous forms (method 1); and chitosan solution or membranous forms were added into the medium containing previously cultured cells (method 2). Results: Scanning electron microscopic investigations of the experimental groups revealed cells with welldefined cellular projections, intact cellular membranes and tight intercellular junctions. They were especially prominent in the membrane group of method 1 and in the membrane and solution groups of method 2. Mouse monoclonal anti-collagen 1 primary antibody was used to indicate collagen synthesis. Prominent collagen synthesis was detected in the membrane groups on the 10th day of culture for both methods. Bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) and MTT assays were performed in order to assess cellular proliferation and viability, respectively. BrdU labelling tests indicated a higher proliferation index in the membrane group of method 1 on the 5th and 10th days. For the second method, the membranous form on the 10th day and solution form on the 5th day were the most effective groups in terms of cellular proliferation. MTT results reflected a high cellular viability in method 1 on the 5th day of treatment with the membranous form, whereas cellular viability was highest in the solution form of method 2 on the 5th day. Conclusion: The membranous form of chitosan induced a significant proliferative effect and increased the ratio of cell-to-cell junctions of Swiss 3T3 mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Conveniently, the solution form also resulted in enhanced cell proliferation and viability compared to the control group. As the solution form is easy to prepare and apply to cells compared to the membrane form, the application of Chitosan directly to media appears to be a convenient alternative for tissue engineering approaches

Keywords

References

  1. 1. Akbuga J. A Biopolymer: Chitosan. Int J Pharm 1995;1:3-18. 2. Koide S. Chitin-chitosan: properties, benefits and risks. Nutrition Research 1998;18:1091-1101. [CrossRef]
  2. 3. Hwang SM, Chen CY. Chitinous materials inhibit nitric oxide production by activated RAW 264.7 macrophages. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2000;271:229-33. [CrossRef]
  3. 4. Yang TL. Chitin-based Materials in Tissue Engineering: Applications in Soft Tissue and Epithelial Organ. Int J Mol Sci 2011;12:1936-63. [CrossRef]
  4. 5. Aral C, Akbuga J. Alternative approach to the preparation of chitosan beads. Int J Pharm 1998;168:9-15. [CrossRef]
  5. 6. Wan Y, Wu H, Wen D. Porous-conductive chitosan scaffolds for tissue engineering, 1. Preparation and characterization. Macromol Biosci 2004;16:882-90. [CrossRef]
  6. 7. Ueno H, Nakamura M, Murakami M. Evaluation effects of chitosan for the extracellular matrix production by fibroblasts and the growth factors production by macrophages. Biomaterials 2001;22:2125-30. [CrossRef]
  7. 8. Pereira F, Pereira C, Lacerda MH. Contact dermatitis due to a cream containing chitin and a Carbitol. Contact Dermatitis 1998;38:290-1. [CrossRef]
  8. 9. Stone CA, Wright H, Clarke T, Powell R, Devaraj VS. Healing skin graft donor sites dressed with chitosan. Brit J Plast Surg 2000;53:601-6. [CrossRef]

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

-

Journal Section

-

Authors

Bahar Uslu This is me

Burcu Biltekin This is me

Seçnur Denir This is me

Ayhan Bilir This is me

Suna Özbaş Turan This is me

Jülide Akbuğa This is me

Serap Arbak This is me

Publication Date

January 1, 2015

Submission Date

January 1, 2015

Acceptance Date

-

Published in Issue

Year 2015 Volume: 32 Number: 1

APA
Uslu, B., Biltekin, B., Denir, S., Bilir, A., Turan, S. Ö., Akbuğa, J., & Arbak, S. (2015). Differences between Solution and Membrane Forms of Chitosan on the In Vitro Activity of Fibroblasts. Balkan Medical Journal, 32(1), 69-78. https://izlik.org/JA58CP97RB
AMA
1.Uslu B, Biltekin B, Denir S, et al. Differences between Solution and Membrane Forms of Chitosan on the In Vitro Activity of Fibroblasts. Balkan Medical Journal. 2015;32(1):69-78. https://izlik.org/JA58CP97RB
Chicago
Uslu, Bahar, Burcu Biltekin, Seçnur Denir, et al. 2015. “Differences Between Solution and Membrane Forms of Chitosan on the In Vitro Activity of Fibroblasts”. Balkan Medical Journal 32 (1): 69-78. https://izlik.org/JA58CP97RB.
EndNote
Uslu B, Biltekin B, Denir S, Bilir A, Turan S Ö, Akbuğa J, Arbak S (January 1, 2015) Differences between Solution and Membrane Forms of Chitosan on the In Vitro Activity of Fibroblasts. Balkan Medical Journal 32 1 69–78.
IEEE
[1]B. Uslu et al., “Differences between Solution and Membrane Forms of Chitosan on the In Vitro Activity of Fibroblasts”, Balkan Medical Journal, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 69–78, Jan. 2015, [Online]. Available: https://izlik.org/JA58CP97RB
ISNAD
Uslu, Bahar - Biltekin, Burcu - Denir, Seçnur - Bilir, Ayhan - Turan, Suna Özbaş - Akbuğa, Jülide - Arbak, Serap. “Differences Between Solution and Membrane Forms of Chitosan on the In Vitro Activity of Fibroblasts”. Balkan Medical Journal 32/1 (January 1, 2015): 69-78. https://izlik.org/JA58CP97RB.
JAMA
1.Uslu B, Biltekin B, Denir S, Bilir A, Turan S Ö, Akbuğa J, Arbak S. Differences between Solution and Membrane Forms of Chitosan on the In Vitro Activity of Fibroblasts. Balkan Medical Journal. 2015;32:69–78.
MLA
Uslu, Bahar, et al. “Differences Between Solution and Membrane Forms of Chitosan on the In Vitro Activity of Fibroblasts”. Balkan Medical Journal, vol. 32, no. 1, Jan. 2015, pp. 69-78, https://izlik.org/JA58CP97RB.
Vancouver
1.Bahar Uslu, Burcu Biltekin, Seçnur Denir, Ayhan Bilir, Suna Özbaş Turan, Jülide Akbuğa, Serap Arbak. Differences between Solution and Membrane Forms of Chitosan on the In Vitro Activity of Fibroblasts. Balkan Medical Journal [Internet]. 2015 Jan. 1;32(1):69-78. Available from: https://izlik.org/JA58CP97RB