bioe thesis defense

27
The Novel Design of a Bioreactor for in vitro Proliferation and Differentiation of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells Author : Joshua Salvi, Department of Bioengineering Honors Advisor : Dr. William Hancock, Bioengineering Thesis Advisors : Dr. Henry Donahue, Orthopaedics (HY) Dr. Peter Butler, Bioengineering (UP) April 16, 2009

Upload: josh

Post on 10-Apr-2015

103 views

Category:

Documents


6 download

DESCRIPTION

Bioengineering thesis defense, presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: BioE Thesis Defense

The Novel Design of a Bioreactor for in vitro Proliferation and Differentiation of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells

Author: Joshua Salvi, Department of BioengineeringHonors Advisor: Dr. William Hancock, BioengineeringThesis Advisors: Dr. Henry Donahue, Orthopaedics (HY)

Dr. Peter Butler, Bioengineering (UP)

April 16, 2009

Page 2: BioE Thesis Defense

Al-Rubeai, et al., 2005; Davies, et al., 2006

Background

650,000 bone allograft transplantationsLow Risk of HIV infection – 1:150,471Failure rate within ten years – 60%

SOLUTION? Tissue-engineered implants

Page 3: BioE Thesis Defense

Hypotheses

Nanoscale substrates select for subpopulations of progenitor cells through differentiation into the osteoblastic lineage, as influenced by surface characteristics, including chemistry and topography.

The same progenitor cell lines cultured on three-dimensional calcium phosphate scaffolds will display significantly maintained differentiation potential with continued expansion in vitro compared with two-dimensional substrata and flat controls.

A bioreactor designed with finite element methods will satisfy all the criteria needed for long-term culture on three-dimensional scaffolds with induced biophysical signals.

Page 4: BioE Thesis Defense

Fabrication of Two-Dimensional SubstrataPS/PBrS 60/40 w/w – 0.5%, 1.0%, 2.0%

150300

0

nm

150300

0

nm

150

300

0

nm

0 1 2 34 5

m0 1 2 3

4 5

m0

12

34

5

m

PLLA/PS 70/30 w/w – 0.5%, 1.0%, 2.0%, 3.0%

Page 5: BioE Thesis Defense

*p<0.05 w/ Flat; #p<0.05 w/ 12 nm; ##p<0.01 w/ 12 nm; N=3

PLLA/PS Response under Oscillating Fluid Flow

Page 6: BioE Thesis Defense

*p<0.05 w/ Flat; **p<0.01 w/ Flat; ##p<0.01 w/ 85 nm; N=3

PS/PBrS FACS Analysis of Differentiation Potential(Day 7)

Page 7: BioE Thesis Defense

*p<0.05 w/ Flat; **p<0.01 w/ Flat; ##p<0.01 w/ 85 nm; N=3

PS/PBrS FACS Analysis of Differentiation Potential(Day 12)

Page 8: BioE Thesis Defense

***p<0.001 w/ 11 nm; N=6

Alkaline Phosphatase Activity

Page 9: BioE Thesis Defense

Summary

Page 10: BioE Thesis Defense

Hypotheses

Nanoscale substrates select for subpopulations of progenitor cells through differentiation into the osteoblastic lineage, as influenced by surface characteristics, including chemistry and topography.

The same progenitor cell lines cultured on three-dimensional calcium phosphate scaffolds will display significantly maintained differentiation potential with continued expansion in vitro compared with two-dimensional substrata and flat controls.

A bioreactor designed with finite element methods will satisfy all the criteria needed for long-term culture on three-dimensional scaffolds with induced biophysical signals.

Page 11: BioE Thesis Defense

3D Scaffold Characterization by SEM

A/B : BD© Calcium PhosphateC/D : BoneMedik© CoralE/F : NaCl-leached PLLA (150-300 μm)G/H : NaCl-leached PLLA (300-500 μm)I/J : NaCl-leached PLLA (500-710 μm)

Page 12: BioE Thesis Defense

*p<0.05 w/ PLLA(300-500); **p<0.01 w/ PLLA(300-500); ***p<0.001 w/ PLLA(300-500); +++p<0.001 w/ PLLA(500-710) N=10

Estimated Porosity Values from ImageJ

To be utilized in FEM Analyses

Page 13: BioE Thesis Defense

**p<0.01 w/ coral; N=6

Alkaline Phosphatase Activity

Page 14: BioE Thesis Defense

Hypotheses

Nanoscale substrates select for subpopulations of progenitor cells through differentiation into the osteoblastic lineage, as influenced by surface characteristics, including chemistry and topography.

A bioreactor designed with finite element methods will satisfy all the criteria needed for long-term culture on three-dimensional scaffolds with induced biophysical signals.

Page 15: BioE Thesis Defense

Protocol for Finite Element Analyses

Software: COMSOL MultiphysicsModel: Incompressible Navier-Stokes, Stress-Strain Analysis (Transient)Solver: Time Dependent, Direct (PARDISO)Fluid Flow: Newtonian, “No-slip” at surface

Inlet Pressure: Outlet Pressure:Constants:

Navier-Stokes:

von Mises Stress:

Page 16: BioE Thesis Defense

Similar data found for “Cell Left” and “Cell Right”

Effects of Cell Height on Surface Stresses

Page 17: BioE Thesis Defense

*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001

Effects of Substrata on Cell Surface Stresses

Page 18: BioE Thesis Defense

Utility of FEM in Tissue Engineering

Page 19: BioE Thesis Defense

Hypotheses

Nanoscale substrates select for subpopulations of progenitor cells through differentiation into the osteoblastic lineage, as influenced by surface characteristics, including chemistry and topography.

A bioreactor designed with finite element methods will satisfy all the criteria needed for long-term culture on three-dimensional scaffolds with induced biophysical signals.

Page 20: BioE Thesis Defense

Design Criteria Design Specifications

The bioreactor must maintain physiologic shear stresses as witnessed in vivo.

Maintain a uniform shear stress throughout the volume of the scaffold at 5, 10, and 20 dynes/cm2.

Standard scaffolds must fit within the bioreactor volume.

Ensure the bioreactor has a variable diameter between 2 and 10 mm.

The bioreactor must withstand oscillating fluid flow conditions.

Determine a symmetrical geometry capable of withstanding 1 Hz oscillations.

Flow must be uniform throughout the scaffold volume.

Simulate the flow profiles throughout the volume of the scaffold to ensure all are greater than zero.

The bioreactor must work for all scaffolds.After determining the relative porosities of each

scaffold, repeat the above analyses with each porosity value.

Bioreactor Design Specifications

Page 21: BioE Thesis Defense

Bioreactor FEM Geometry

Page 22: BioE Thesis Defense

Tight versus Loose Geometries

Page 23: BioE Thesis Defense

Comparison of Various Scaffolds in Loose Geometry

Page 24: BioE Thesis Defense

Summary

Page 25: BioE Thesis Defense

Hypotheses

Nanoscale substrates select for subpopulations of progenitor cells through differentiation into the osteoblastic lineage, as influenced by surface characteristics, including chemistry and topography.

A bioreactor designed with finite element methods will satisfy all the criteria needed for long-term culture on three-dimensional scaffolds with induced biophysical signals.

Page 26: BioE Thesis Defense

Modification of the Classic Approach

Page 27: BioE Thesis Defense

Acknowledgments

Dr. Henry DonahueDr. Peter ButlerDr. Jung Yul LimDianne McDonaldDrs. Yue Zhang and Christopher Niyibizi, Jacqueline YanosoDr. Ryan Riddle, Amanda Taylor, Peter Govey

Dr. William HancockDr. Margaret SlatteryCarol Boring

Bioengineering FacultySURIP, Step-Up, BBSI StudentsStudents of Bioengineering

Penn State College of MedicinePenn State College of EngineeringSchreyer Honors CollegeDepartment of Bioengineering

Biomaterials and Bionanotechnology Summer Institute(BBSI)