Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Acta Biomater. 2020 Apr 16;110:68–81. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.04.013

Figure 3: Enzymatic degradation of dECM, dECM+PPF, and PPF.

Figure 3:

(A) Original mass (%) and (B) original width (%) of material samples, normalized to the initial time point, as a function of time after digestion in 117 U/mL collagenase II solution. When compared to dECM, both dECM+PPF and PPF experience significantly less weight loss and change in width after collagenase digestion, as indicated (*p< 0.05; Tukey multiple comparison). Representative images of (C) dECM, (D) dECM+PPF, and (E) PPF before collagenase digestion and (F) dECM, (G) dECM+PPF, and (H) PPF after 32 h collagenase degradation, arrows indicate the measured width. dECM loses its shape with digestion, while both dECM+PPF and PPF retain their shape. The images display qualitative changes in mass and width of each material with collagenase degradation. (I) FITC concentration (%) normalized to initial concentration at 0 h, as a function of time. (J) The addition of PPF to dECM does not significantly impact the permeability (cm2/s) of dECM+PPF. Groups with different letters indicate statistical difference. Data is presented as mean + standard deviation, except for the permeability where data is mean + standard deviation.