A comparative evaluation of factors influencing osteoinductivity among scaffolds designed for bone regeneration

Erin L. Hsu*, Jason H. Ghodasra, Amruta Ashtekar, Michael S. Nickoli, Sungsoo S. Lee, Samuel I. Stupp, Wellington K. Hsu

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

21 Scopus citations


Due to differing compositions, synthetic scaffolds developed for bone regeneration vary widely in efficacy. To quantify the impact of such differences on osteoinductivity, numerous parameters were examined. Absorbable collagen sponge (ACS), three ceramic-based carriers (#1-3) of varying compositions, mineralized allograft chips, and an experimental phosphoserine-rich nanofiber scaffold [S(P) gel] were compared in their ability to promote cell adhesion, proliferation/survival, growth factor binding/release, and osteogenic gene expression. Human preosteoblasts were found to adhere most efficiently to the S(P) gel, and the growth/survival was greatest on the S(P) and ACS scaffolds, with minimal growth seen on the allograft and Ceramic #3. In bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) binding/release assays, ACS demonstrated a burst release pattern, whereas the allograft and the ceramics inefficiently released BMP-2. The S(P) gel showed the most ideal rates of growth factor binding and release. QPCR analyses showed significant differences in the CXCL12, CXCR4, and RANKL transcripts among the cells grown on these various scaffolds. Although some scaffolds showed an advantage over others in individual parameters, the nanofiber gel appears to provide the optimal balance in the factors important to osteoinductivity evaluated here.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1764-1772
Number of pages9
JournalTissue Engineering - Part A
Issue number15-16
StatePublished - Aug 1 2013

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Bioengineering
  • Biochemistry
  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Biomaterials


Dive into the research topics of 'A comparative evaluation of factors influencing osteoinductivity among scaffolds designed for bone regeneration'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this