2011
DOI: 10.1007/s11095-010-0358-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Porous EH and EH-PEG Scaffolds as Gene Delivery Vehicles to Skeletal Muscle

Abstract: This work aims to show the utility of EH biomaterials for plasmid delivery for potentially localized skeletal muscle regeneration.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Biomaterial scaffolds can help deliver genetic cargo by preserving genetic structures, protecting them from nuclease-mediated degradation and controlling their release from the scaffold. By modulating scaffold properties such as molecular weight, porosity, or crosslinking, a localized and sustained release of genetic material can be mediated through diffusion or scaffold degradation [193,194]. This delivery strategy has the potential to increase transfection efficiency and expression, ultimately improving the therapeutic effectiveness of these treatments.…”
Section: Genetic Substancesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Biomaterial scaffolds can help deliver genetic cargo by preserving genetic structures, protecting them from nuclease-mediated degradation and controlling their release from the scaffold. By modulating scaffold properties such as molecular weight, porosity, or crosslinking, a localized and sustained release of genetic material can be mediated through diffusion or scaffold degradation [193,194]. This delivery strategy has the potential to increase transfection efficiency and expression, ultimately improving the therapeutic effectiveness of these treatments.…”
Section: Genetic Substancesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alternatively, biomaterials have been used in conjunction with cells in an effort to further improve in vivo outcomes (Fujita et al, 2010; Borselli et al, 2011; Hinds et al, 2011; Machingal et al, 2011; Page et al, 2011; Rossi et al, 2011; Corona et al, 2012, 2013, 2014; Monge et al, 2012; Du et al, 2013; Martin et al, 2013; Williams et al, 2013; Juhas and Bursac, 2014; Juhas et al, 2014; VanDusen et al, 2014; Wang et al, 2014) (for a recent review of these studies, see, Christ et al, 2015). Incorporation of signals has included chemical cues such as pharmacological molecules/growth factors (Falco et al, 2011; Sato et al, 2011; Bian and Bursac, 2012; Koning et al, 2012; Wang et al, 2012, 2014; Yun et al, 2012; Ko et al, 2013) or mechanical cues such as mechanical stretch (Vandenburgh and Karlisch, 1989; Vandenburgh et al, 1989, 1991; Moon du et al, 2008; Machingal et al, 2011; Corona et al, 2012). In each case, the goal is to identify a strategy in which a micro-environment more favorable to skeletal muscle regeneration can be achieved.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…IGF-1 favors muscle regeneration by increasing the rate of SatC proliferation and the formation of myotubes. [92][93][94][95][96] Similarly, FGF-2 stimulates muscle regeneration in vitro and in vivo by promoting the proliferation of myoblasts after injury. [97][98][99][100] Moreover, it facilitates the re-cruitment and proliferation of SatCs 101 and promotes angiogenesis.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%