Fish Scale-Derived Scaffolds for Culturing Human Corneal Endothelial Cells

Figure 3

(a) FSS showed transparency, and when observed in bright field of the confocal microscope, (b) it showed narrow ridges and valleys. (c) Central FSS was rough but was relatively a flat surface compared to the other areas. (d and f) Second and third quadrants, respectively, showing broad ridges and valleys. (e) Fourth quadrant showing arc strokes. (g) Although the transparency of FSS after HCEnC culture was not objectively determined, the scaffold did not show any damage or high opacity when observed subjectively. (h) Differences in morphology between Lab-Tek and FSS grown HCEnCs at 40x magnification (for day 0, to appreciate the number of cells that were plated) and 100x magnifications on the rest of the days of culture. Most of the cells adhered and showed outgrowth on broad ridges (quadrants 2 and 3) and in the central FSS. (i) Growth rate of the cells in Lab-Tek was higher compared to that on FSS. 100% confluency was observed in Lab-Tek slides whereas around 65% confluency was observed in FSS at day 11 (). (j) Glucose uptake was recorded in Lab-Tek-grown cells compared to fish scale scaffolds and showed active metabolism of cells without any significant difference between the two conditions (). The data are expressed as the mean ± SD. FSS: fish scale scaffold; HCEnC: human corneal endothelial cell. Scale: (B–D) 100x magnification.