Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Adv Mater. 2019 Nov 11;31(52):e1905135. doi: 10.1002/adma.201905135

Figure 3. Diabetes correction in STZ-induced diabetic mice.

Figure 3.

(a) Schematic illustration of the BP device featuring a titanium frame for mouse implantation. (b) Schematic illustration of the islet encapsulation module. (c) Microscope image of islets encapsulated within the spiral alginate hydrogel. (d) Digital images showing the surgical procedure for fastening the device in the transcutaneous position: (left) a circular section of skin was excised and a purse-string suture pattern was placed in the surrounding skin; (center) the device was placed in the space of the excised skin; (right) the sutures were pulled tight and the device was fixed in the transcutaneous position. (e) BG readings of mice receiving BP devices (n = 5), subcutaneous transplantation controls (n = 3), and nontreated diabetic mice (n = 5); mean ± SD; ***P < 0.001 (BP device versus subcutaneous control), ***P < 0.001 (BP device versus diabetic control). (f) IPGTT at day 7; n = 5 for BP devices, n = 3 for subcutaneous controls, n = 5 for nontreated diabetic controls, n = 5 for non-diabetic controls; mean ± SD; ***P < 0.001 (BP device versus subcutaneous control), ***P < 0.001 (BP device versus diabetic control), n.s. (P > 0.05; BP device versus non-diabetic control). (g) Live/dead staining of islets from one retrieved BP device at day 15. (h) Static GSIS test of retrieved BP devices (n = 3) and subcutaneous controls (n = 3); mean ± SEM; ***P < 0.001 (2.8 mM versus 16.7 mM conditions for retrieved BP devices), n.s. (P > 0.05; 2.8 mM versus 16.7 mM conditions for retrieved subcutaneous controls), ***P < 0.001 (retrieved BP device versus retrieved subcutaneous control for both 2.8 mM and 16.7 mM conditions). (i) H&E staining of islets in one retrieved BP device at day 15. (j) Immunohistochemical staining of islets in a retrieved BP device at day 15.