Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Nov 12.
Published in final edited form as: Adv Mater. 2014 Sep 19;26(42):7202–7208. doi: 10.1002/adma.201403074

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Tough, permeable microvessels support viable heart cell culture. (A,B) SEMs of needles pulling sutures through microfluidic bases made of (A) PGS or (B) 1:2 APS. Arrow (A) shows PGS tearing. Scale bars: 500 μm. (C,D,G,H) Mechanical properties (C) toughness, (D) strain-to-failure, (G) stiffness, and (H) ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of the PGS base, 1:2 APS base, and sc-PGS PM interface. Data show Average +/− SE. 1Significant difference between PGS base and APS base; 2Significant difference between APS base and sc-PGS PM; 3Significant difference between PGS base and sc-PGS PM. (E,F) Biodegradation, 25 days after implantation and H&E staining of (E) PGS base or (F) 1:2 APS base. Asterisks show non-degraded polymer remnants. Scale bars 100 μm. (I,J,K) H&E stained cross sections of heart cells cultured on microvessel bases covered by (I) solid PGS membrane plus sc-PGS PM, (J) sc-PGS PM, or (K) sc-PGS PM plus 2L BSoff heart cell scaffold. Asterisk in (I) shows solid PGS membrane. Scale bars 100 μm. (L–N) Viable cardiac myocytes and fibroblasts cultured (L) on devices with solid PGS membrane plus sc-PGS PM or sc-PGS PM alone with perfusion for 2 days; (M) on 4L devices without flow (static) or with perfusion for 2 days; (N) on 4L devices with perfusion for 2 or 4 days. Data show Average +/− SE; 1Significant difference due to solid PGS membrane; 2Significant difference due to perfusion; 3Significant difference due to cell type. (Table S2).