Why the study?
Little is known about mouse aortic valve leaflet tensile properties due to their microscopic size and a lack of proper mechanical testing modalities.
A novel method using dopamine adhesive and a silicone rubber membrane successfully quantifies the biaxial tensile properties of microscopic mouse aortic valve leaflets, demonstrating greater stiffness in the circumferential direction.
Characterizes MAVL tensile properties; extends mouse AV disease models but leaves open clinical translation.
Understanding aortic valve (AV) mechanics is crucial in elucidating both the mechanisms that drive the manifestation of valvular diseases as well as the development of treatment modalities that target these processes. Genetically modified mouse models have become the gold standard in assessing biological mechanistic influences of AV development and disease. However, very little is known about mouse aortic valve leaflet (MAVL) tensile properties due to their microscopic size (∼500 μm long and 45 μm thick) and the lack of proper mechanical testing modalities to assess uniaxial and biaxial tensile properties of the tissue. We developed a method in which the biaxial tensile properties of MAVL tissues can be assessed by adhering the tissues to a silicone rubber membrane utilizing dopamine as an adhesive. Applying equiaxial tensile loads on the tissue-membrane composite and tracking the engineering strains on the surface of the tissue resulted in the characteristic orthotropic response of AV tissues seen in human and porcine tissues. Our data suggest that the circumferential direction is stiffer than the radial direction (n = 6, P = 0.0006) in MAVL tissues. This method can be implemented in future studies involving longitudinal mechanical stimulation of genetically modified MAVL tissues bridging the gap between cellular biological mechanisms and valve mechanics in popular mouse models of valve disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chaparro et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: