Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Biomaterials. 2014 May 16;35(25):6787–6796. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.04.083

Fig. 5. Phase 3 In Vivo Integration Interface Histology and Tensile Properties; Comparison with Phase 2 In Vitro Results.

Fig. 5

Picrosirius Red (for collagen) stained integration interface sections (A) (scale bar = 100 µm), interface Young’s modulus (B), and ultimate tensile strength (C) of control, single LOX+C-ABC+TGF-β1, and double LOX+C-ABC+TGF-β1 pre-treated engineered-to-native assemblies. Bars not connected by the same letter are significantly different (p < 0.05), n = 6 per group, mean ± SD. Comparison between Phase 2 (in vitro) and Phase 3 (in vivo) results for interface Young’s modulus (D) and ultimate tensile strength (E). Asterix represents significance between in vitro and in vivo results, and Greek letters represent significance between control and LOX+C-ABC+TGF-β1 treatment following 2-way ANOVA analysis, n = 6 per group, mean ± SD.