This investigation demonstrates gelatin-based hydrogels' potential as scaffolds in liver tissue engineering, highlighting biocompatibility and enzyme secretion benefits.
Liver tissue engineering is a promising strategy to overcome the shortage of liver donors for end-stage patients. This study aims to investigate gelatin-based hydrogels as scaffolds for liver tissue engineering. In this regard, hydrogels were fabricated using various gelatin and polyethylene glycol ratios. The used ratios were 10[Formula: see text]wt.% gelatin (GEL 100%:PEG 0%), 8.5[Formula: see text]wt.% gelatin and 1.5[Formula: see text]wt.% PEG (GEL 85%:PEG 15%), and 7[Formula: see text]wt.% gelatin and 3[Formula: see text]wt.% PEG (GEL 70%:PEG 30%). Several physicochemical characterizations and biocompatibility assays were conducted on the hydrogels. Furthermore, the functionality of the cells embedded within the hydrogels was evaluated by measuring their enzyme secretion levels. The findings showed that the pore structure and mechanical properties of gelatin scaffolds can be controlled using different ratios of PEG. Despite the absence of significant differences in the compression assay, the mechanical performance showed a positive correlation with a higher PEG ratio. FTIR assay verified the presence of the functional groups of applied polymers. HepG2 viability decreased with the increase of PEG concentration, but this decrease was insignificant between the (GEL 100%:PEG 0%) and (GEL 85%:PEG 15%). It is important to note that we observed a significant increase in alanine aminotransferase secretion in (GEL 85%:PEG 15%) and (GEL 70%:PEG 30%) groups at 48[Formula: see text]h, as well as aspartate aminotransferase secretion in the (GEL 85%:PEG 15%) group. The overall results revealed the potential of gelatin/PEG hydrogel for liver tissue engineering. However, further research is necessary to validate these observations and determine the specific conditions under which the treatment may be more effective.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heidari et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: