CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 208Bone Tissue Engineering MaterialsCollagen: Extraction and Characterization3D Printing in Biomedical Research

Graphene Oxide—A Tool for the Preparation of Chemically Crosslinking Free Alginate–Chitosan–Collagen Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering

Open access
Kolanthai, Elayaraja, Sindu, Pugazhendhi Abinaya, Khajuria, Deepak Kumar, Veerla, Sarath Chandra, Kuppuswamy, Dhandapani, Catalani, Luiz Henrique, Mahapatra, D. Roy·2018·ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
DOI 10.1021/acsami.8b00699
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Developing a biodegradable scaffold remains a major challenge in bone tissue engineering. This study was aimed at developing novel alginate–chitosan–collagen (SA–CS–Col)-based composite scaffolds consisting of graphene oxide (GO) to enrich porous structures, elicited by the freeze-drying technique. To characterize porosity, water absorption, and compressive modulus, GO scaffolds (SA–CS–Col–GO) were prepared with and without Ca 2+ -mediated crosslinking (chemical crosslinking) and analyzed using Raman, Fourier transform infrared (FTIR), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and scanning electron microscopy techniques. The incorporation of GO into the SA–CS–Col matrix increased both crosslinking density as indicated by the reduction of crystalline peaks in the XRD patterns and polyelectrolyte ion complex as confirmed by FTIR. GO scaffolds showed increased mechanical properties which were further increased for chemically crosslinked scaffolds. All scaffolds exhibited interconnected pores of 10–250 μm range. By increasing the crosslinking density with Ca 2+, a decrease in the porosity/swelling ratio was observed. Moreover, the SA–CS–Col–GO scaffold with or without chemical crosslinking was more stable as compared to SA–CS or SA–CS–Col scaffolds when placed in aqueous solution. To perform in vitro biochemical studies, mouse osteoblast cells were grown on various scaffolds and evaluated for cell proliferation by using MTT assay and mineralization and differentiation by alizarin red S staining. These measurements showed a significant increase for cells attached to the SA–CS–Col–GO scaffold compared to SA–CS or SA–CS–Col composites. However, chemical crosslinking of SA–CS–Col–GO showed no effect on the osteogenic ability of osteoblasts. These studies indicate the potential use of GO to prepare free SA–CS–Col scaffolds with preserved porous structure with elongated Col fibrils and that these composites, which are biocompatible and stable in a biological medium, could be used for application in engineering bone tissues.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acsami.8b00699

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Acemoglu, D. and Autor, D. (2011). Chapter 12 -Skills, Tasks and Technologies: Implications for Employment and Earnings. In Ashenfelter, O. and Card, D., editors, Handbook of Labor Economics, volume 4, Part B, pages 1043-1171. Elsevier.
  2. Autor, D. H. and Dorn, D. (2009). This jobs are getting old: Measuring changes in job opportunities using occupation age structure. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 99(2):45-51.
  3. Autor, D. H. and Dorn, D. (2013). The growth of low skill service jobs and the polarization of the U.S. labor market. American Economic Review, 103(5):1553-1597.
  4. Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., and Kearney, M. S. (2006). The Polarization of the U.S. Labor Market. American Economic Review, 96(2):189-194.
  5. Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., and Kearney, M. S. (2008). Trend in U.S. wage inequality: Revising the revisionists. Review of Economics and Statistics, 90:300-323.
  6. Autor, D. H., Levy, F., and Murnane, R. J. (2003). The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118:1279-1333.
  7. Baumgarten, D., Geishecker, I., and Görg, H. (2013). Offshoring, tasks, and the skill-wage pattern. European Economic Review, 61:132-52.
  8. Becker, S. O., Ekholm, K., and Muendler, M.-A. (2013). Offshoring and the onshore composition of tasks and skills. Journal of International Economics, 90:91-106.
  9. Bhagwati, J., Panagariya, A., and Srinivasan, T. (2004). The muddles over outsourcing. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18:93-114.
  10. Blinder, A. S. (2009a). How Many U.S. Jobs Might Be Offshorable? World Economics, 10(2):41-78.
  11. Blinder, A. S. (2009b). Offshoring: Big deal, or business as usual? In Friedman, B. M., editor, Offshoring of Amercian Jobs. What Response from U.S. Economic Policy?, pages 19-60. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
  12. Brynin, M. and Longhi, S. (2009). Overqualification: Major or minor mismatch? Economics of Education Review, 28:114-121.
  13. Cortes, G. M. et al. (2016). Where have the middle-wage workers gone? a study of polarization using panel data. Journal of Labor Economics, 34(1):63-105.
  14. Costinot, A. and Vogel, J. (2010). Matching and Inequality in the World Economy. Journal of Political Econ- omy, 118(4):747-786.
  15. Dustmann, C., Ludsteck, J., and Schönberg, U. (2009). Revisiting the German Wage Structure. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(2):843-881.
  16. Ebenstein, A., Harrison, A., McMillan, M., and Phillips, S. (2014). Estimating the Impact of Trade and Off- shoring on American Workers Using the Current Population Surveys. The Review of Economics and Statis- tics, 96(4):581-595.
  17. Egger, H., Kreickemeier, U., and Wrona, J. (2015). Offshoring domestic jobs. Journal of International Eco- nomics, 97(1):112-25.
  18. Feenstra, R. C. and Hanson, G. H. (1996). Globalization, outsourcing, and wage inequality. The American Economic Review, 86(2):240-245.
  19. Feenstra, R. C. and Hanson, G. H. (1999). The impact of outsourcing and high-technology capital on wages: Estimates for the united states, 1979-1990. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 86(2):240-245.
  20. Goos, M. and Manning, A. (2007). Lousy and Lovely Jobs: The Rising Polarization of Work in Britain. Review of Economic Studies, 89:118-133.
  21. Goos, M., Manning, A., and Salomons, A. (2009). Job polarization in Europe. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 99:58-63.
  22. Goos, M., Manning, A., and Salomons, A. (2014). Explaining job polarization: Routine-biased technological change and offshoring. American Economic Review, 104:2509-2526.
  23. Groizard, J. L., Ranjan, P., and Rodriguez-Lopez, A. (2014). Offshoring and jobs: The myriad channels of influence. European Economic Review, 72:221-239.
  24. Grossman, G. M. and Rossi-Hansberg, E. (2008). Trading Task: A Simple Theory of Offshoring. American Economic Review, 98:1978-1997.
  25. Hummels, D., Jørgensen, R., Munch, J., and Xiang, C. (2014). The Wage Effects of Offshoring: Evidence from Danish Matched Worker-Firm Data. American Economic Review, 104(6):1597-1629.
  26. Jensen, J. B. and Kletzer, L. G. (2010). Measuring Tradable Services and the Task Content of Offshorable Services Jobs, pages 309-335. University of Chicago Press.
  27. Jones, R. W. and Kierzkowski, H. (1990). The role of services in production and international trade: A theo- retical framework. In Jones, R. W. and Krueger, A. O., editors, The Political Economy of International Trade, pages 31-48. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
  28. Jones, R. W. and Kierzkowski, H. (2001). A framework for fragmentation. In Arndt, S. and Kierzkowski, H., editors, Fragmentation: New Production Patterns in the World Economy, pages 17-45. Oxford University Press, New York.
  29. Kohler, W. (2004a). Aspects of international fragmentation. Review of International Economics, 12:793-816.
  30. Layard, R., Nickell, S., and Jackman, R. (2005). Unemployment: Macroeconomic Performance and the Labour Market. Oxford University Press.
  31. Michaels, G., Natraj, A., and Van Reenen, J. (2014). Has ICT Polarized Skill Demand? Evidence from Eleven Countries over Twenty-Five Years. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 96(1):60-77.
  32. Moncarz, R. J., Wolf, M. G., and Wright, B. (2008). Service-providing occupations, offshoring, and the labor market. Monthly Labor Review, pages 71-86.
  33. Muysken, J., Vallizadeh, E., and Ziesemer, T. (2015). Migration, Unemployment, and Skill Downgrading. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 117(6):403-51.
  34. Olney, W. W. (2012). Offshoring, immigration, and the native wage distribution. Canadian Journal of Eco- nomics, 45:830-856.
  35. Ottaviano, G. I. P., Peri, G., and Wright, G. C. (2013). Immigration, Offshoring and American Jobs. American Economic Review, 103(5):1925-59.
  36. Peri, G. and Sparber, C. (2009). Task specialization, immigration, and wages. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(3):135-169.
  37. Pissarides, C. A. (2000). Equilibrium Unemployment Theory. MIT Press, Cambrdige, MA, 2nd edition.
  38. Shapiro, C. and Stiglitz, J. (1984). Equilibrium unemployment as a worker discipline device. American Eco- nomic Review, 75:433-444.
  39. Snower, D. J., Brown, A. J. G., and Merkl, C. (2009). Globalization and the welfare state: A review of Hans- Werner Sinn's Can Germany Be Saved? Journal of Economic Literature, 47:136-158.
  40. Spence, M. (2011). Globalization and unemployment: The downside of integrating markets. Foreign Affairs, 90(4):28-41.
  41. Spitz-Oener, A. (2006). Technical change, job tasks, and rising educational demands: Looking outside the wage structure. Journal of Labour Economics, 24:235-270.
  42. Wright, G. C. (2014). Revisiting the employment impact of offshoring. European Economic Review, 66:63-83.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kolanthai, E., Sindu, P. A., Khajuria, D. K., Veerla, S. C., Kuppuswamy, D., Catalani, L. H., & Mahapatra, D. R.
Affiliations
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • Centre for Biotechnology, Anna University, Chennai 600 025, India
  • Indian Institute of Science Bangalore (IN)
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
  • Kolanthai, Elayaraja
  • Mahapatra, D. Roy
ORCID
Venue
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2018-03-28
Volume
10
Issue
15
Pages
12441-12452
ISSN
  • 1944-8244 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-8252
DOI
10.1021/acsami.8b00699
OpenAlex
W2794528450
Cited by
208
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 6
FWCI
8.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NOT FOUND REPOSITORY (Indian Institute of Science Bangalore) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2011/21442-6, 2015/19694-8)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Collagen: Extraction and Characterization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Keywords
graphene oxide, alginate, chitosan, collagen, composite scaffolds, bone tissue engineering, chemical crosslinking, freeze-drying, porosity, mechanical properties, osteoblasts, osteogenic differentiation, biodegradable scaffolds
MeSH terms
Alginic Acid, Animals, Biocompatible Materials, Collagen, Graphite, Porosity, Tissue Engineering, Chitosan, Cell Proliferation, Mice, Tissue Scaffolds

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review