Journal of Investigative Medicine:
Symposium and Meeting Reports
Design of a Bioartificial Pancreas+
Opara, Emmanuel C. PhD*†‡; Mirmalek-Sani, Sayed-Hadi PhD*; Khanna, Omaditya PhD§; Moya, Monica L. PhD†‡; Brey, Eric M. PhD†‡¶
From the *Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC; †Pritzker Institute of Biomedical Science and Engineering, Departments of ‡Biomedical Engineering, and §Chemical and Biological Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology; and ¶Research Service, Hines Veterans Hospital, Chicago, IL.
Received May 4, 2010.
Accepted for publication June 15, 2010.
Reprints: Emmanuel C. Opara, PhD, Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Blvd, Winston-Salem, NC 27157. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Supported by funds from the National Institutes of Health (RO1 DK 080897), the Vila Rosenfeld Estate, Greenville, NC (E.C.O.), the National Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 0852048, 0731201, and 0854430), and the Veterans Administration (E.M.B.). Mr. Khanna received support from a generous donation from Mr. Edward Ross, and Dr. Moya received support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This symposium was supported in part by a grant from the National Center for Research Resources (R13 RR023236).
+Presented at the AFMR-sponsored Symposium of EB2010 in Anaheim, CA.
Introduction: In type 1 diabetes, the β-cells that secrete insulin have been destroyed such that daily exogenous insulin administration is required for the control of blood glucose in individuals with the disease. After the development of reliable techniques for the isolation of islets from the human pancreas, islet transplantation has emerged as a therapeutic option, albeit for only a few selected patients largely because there are not enough islets for the millions of patients requiring the treatment, and there is also the need to use immunosuppressive drugs to prevent transplant rejection. In 1980, the concept of islet immunoisolation by microencapsulation was introduced as a technique to overcome these 2 major barriers to islet transplantation. Microencapsulation of islets and transplantation in the peritoneal cavity was then described as a bioartificial pancreas. However, it is difficult to retrieve encapsulated islets transplanted in the peritoneal cavity, thus making it difficult to meet all the criteria for a bioartificial pancreas. A new design of a bioartificial pancreas comprising islets co-encapsulated with angiogenic protein in permselective multilayer alginate-poly-L-ornithine-alginate microcapsules and transplanted in an omentum pouch is described in this paper.
Materials and Methods: The multilayer alginate-poly-L-ornithine-alginate microcapsules are made with ultrapure alginate using poly-L-ornithine as a semipermeable membrane separating the 2 alginate layers. The inner alginate layer is used to encapsulate the islets, and the outer layer is used to encapsulate angiogenic protein, which would induce neovascularization around the graft within the omentum pouch.
Results: In in vitro studies, we found that both the wild-type and the heparin-binding growth-associated molecule (HBGAM)-fibroblast growth factor-1 chimera can be encapsulated and released in a controlled and sustained manner from the outer alginate layer with a mean diameter in the range of 113 to 164 µm when 1.25% high guluronic acid alginate is used to formulate this outer layer.
Discussion: We are currently performing in vivo experiments to determine the ability of angiogenic proteins released from this outer layer to induce neovascularization around the grafts in the omentum pouch. We will subsequently examine the effect of co-encapsulation of islets with angiogenic protein on blood glucose control in diabetic animals. It is hoped that addition of tissue engineering to encapsulated islet transplantation will result in long-term survival of the islets and their ability to control blood glucose in type 1 diabetes without the necessity to use risky immunosuppressive drugs to prevent transplant rejection.
Diabetes mellitus represents a growing burden both on health care expenditures and the quality of life of the individuals with the disease. Current estimates for the prevalence of diabetes indicate a global prevalence of approximately 285 million people,1 approximately 5% to 6% of adults in Central Europe,2 and here in the United States, available data from the Centers for Disease Control show that approximately 24 million individuals have the disease with more than 5% of them with type 1 diabetes.3 Type 1 diabetes is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in young adults. Secondary diabetic complications include a quadrupled risk of heart attack and stroke and a significant decrease in life expectancy.1,4 The economic impact of diabetes is tremendous across the world, with a projected impact of more than $200 billion in direct annual costs in North America in 20101 and an estimated 25% of US Medicare annual inpatient care expenditures attributed to the treatment of diabetes and its associated complications.5
The current standard treatment for type 1 diabetes is daily injections of exogenous insulin to control blood glucose. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial in 1993 was designed to determine whether long-term control of blood glucose using intensive insulin therapy could prevent the development of secondary complications of diabetes, and the conclusion from 2 cohorts of a total of 1441 patients was that intensive insulin treatment could keep blood glucose close to normal but could only delay the onset and progression of diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy, but ultimately, it would not prevent or reverse existing secondary complications.6 In addition, long-term intensive insulin therapy results in undesirable adverse effects, including unwanted weight gain7 and increased episodes of hypoglycemia, which impose constant stress of frequent blood glucose monitoring.6
An alternative treatment modality for type 1 diabetes is the replacement of the missing β-cells through transplantation of the whole pancreas, which in contrast to insulin administration is capable of achieving normoglycemia along with the prevention and even reversal of certain secondary diabetic complications, such as nephropathy and atherosclerosis.8 The advantageous effects of β-cell replacement therapy on diabetic complications compared with insulin treatment may be attributed to the role played by the by-product of proinsulin cleavage, named C-peptide, during insulin processing in the β-cell,9-12 albeit the benefits of cell replacement therapy may be masked by collateral risks associated with the use of immunosuppressive drugs to prevent transplant rejection in transplant recipients.8 Unfortunately, whole pancreas transplantation is a complex surgical procedure that is fraught with significant morbidities and technical issues including the drainage of exocrine secretions from the transplanted pancreas.8 For many years, a preferred β-cell replacement option has been islet transplantation.13-16 This approach was energized by the first report of a method for isolating islets from the rat pancreas,17 which was followed by other reports showing the successful isolation of islets from the human pancreas using different modifications of the original pancreatic tissue digestion with collagenase18-20 and new improvements in the collagenase enzyme activity characterization.21 However, successful islet transplantation in diabetic patients remained elusive22 until the introduction of the glucocorticoid-free immunosuppressive regimen by the Edmonton group about a decade ago.23 Still, the need to use long-term immunosuppressive drugs and the severe shortage of human pancreas remain major barriers to clinical islet transplantation.13-16,23-27 According to the United Network Organ Sharing figures (www.unos.org) in the 10 years preceding 2000, transplant registrants quadrupled to nearly 80,000 patients, while the number of donors remained stable at less than 20,000 per annum. The search for alternative sources of islets for transplantation has continued, and there are currently attempts to bioengineer stem cells to pseudoislets and neoislets both in vitro and in vivo. If any of these efforts to bioengineer insulin-producing cells becomes successful, another major hurdle presented by the need for immunosuppression to prevent transplant rejection would still need to be overcome.
One of the alternative approaches to overcome the 2 major barriers to islet transplantation indicated earlier is the technique of islet immunoisolation by microencapsulation before transplantation.14,28-30 The principle behind this technique is illustrated in Figure 1, and Figure 2 shows rat islets encapsulated in alginate microbeads. Since the introduction of this technique in 1980,28 there have been several reports of successful preclinical studies with microencapsulated alloislets and xenoislets in nonimmunosuppressed large animals.31-35 Several pilot clinical trials have also been performed with variable success,36-38 and a large clinical trial is currently being performed by Living Cell Technologies, Ltd, in Russia and New Zealand.39
Routinely, these microencapsulated islet transplantations have been performed in the peritoneal cavity, where the grafts have little or no chance to vascularize. It is very well known that revascularization of islet grafts is critical for their long-term survival and function,40 which may explain why microencapsulated islet transplants may fail in the absence of fibrotic overgrowths around the graft in the peritoneal cavity.41 Also, a continual problem with intraperitoneal transplantation of microencapsulated islets is the inability to retrieve them after extended periods of transplantation, which represents an inadequacy of the grafts to fulfill the criteria for a bioartificial pancreas. To qualify as a bioartificial pancreas, the transplantation should be performed with little or no immunosuppression and should be performed with technical ease; the graft should be capable of long-term function and should be retrievable for biopsy, if and when desired. We have designed a new model of microencapsulated islet transplantation to meet these criteria for a bioartificial pancreas, which should be distinguished from various models of mechanical insulin delivery devices referred to as the artificial pancreas.42
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Low viscosity (20-200 mPa·s) ultrapure sodium alginate with high mannuronic acid (LVM) and high guluronic acid (LVG) content were purchased from Nova-Matrix (Oslo, Norway). The LVM and LVG alginates were reported by the manufacturer to have molecular weights of 75 to 200 kDa and G/M ratios of ≤1 and ≥1.5, respectively. Poly-L-ornithine (PLO) hydrochloride, with molecular weight of 15,000 to 30,000, was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St Louis, MO). Fluorescein isothiocyanate-conjugated (FITC) bovine serum albumin was obtained from Invitrogen (Eugene, Ore). Fluorescein isothiocyanate-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (FITC-IgG) was purchased from AbD Serotec (Martinsried, Germany). Solutions for alginate microbead synthesis were made using the following chemicals: HEPES, NaCl, and MgCl2 (Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA); CaCl2 (Acros, Morris Plains, NJ).
Multilayer Microbead Synthesis
The procedure used for generating multilayer microbeads is a modification of our routine method of islet microencapsulation.43 This modified procedure, which has been recently described,44 involves first synthesizing PLO-coated alginate microbeads followed by the generation of an outer alginate layer. The inner alginate core was synthesized using the original conditions previously shown to support functional islet encapsulation.43 Droplets of 1.5% (w/v) LVM alginate were formed with a 2-channel air jacket microencapsulator (at air jacket pressure of 15 psi and alginate jacket pressure of 12.5 psi) using a 25-gauge needle. The droplets were expelled into a 100 mmol/L CaCl2 crosslinking solution and allowed to incubate for 15 minutes. After several washings of the microbeads with calcium-supplemented saline solution and the PLO coating,43 the external alginate layer was synthesized.44 The concentration of alginate used to make the outer layer was varied between 1% and 1.5% for both LVG and LVM alginates. In some cases, 5 U/mL of heparin was incorporated into the outer layer by directly adding it to the outer alginate solution before addition of the microbeads. Immediately after synthesis, the microbeads were imaged using an Axiovert 200 inverted microscope (Carl Zeiss MicroImaging, Inc, Oberkochen, Germany) with a 10× objective (1.08 Km/pixel), and the size of the outer alginate layer was quantified with AxioVision AC Rel. 4.6 (AxioVision, Oberkochen, Germany).
Stability of the Outer Alginate Layer
The microbeads were incubated in saline solution containing a physiological concentration of calcium (2 mmol/L) and placed in an incubator maintained at 37°C to monitor the stability of the outer layer. The microbeads were imaged daily, and the thickness of the outer layer was quantified as described in the previous section. The surrounding solution was replenished with fresh solution after imaging.
Radiolabeling of Fibroblast Growth Factor-1
Fibroblast growth factor-1 (FGF-1) was purchased from Peprotech (Rockyhill, NJ) and radiolabeled with 125I isotope using Iodo-beads (Pierce Chemical Co, Rockford, IL). The lodo-beads were washed with reaction buffer, placed in a buffer solution containing 125I (1 mCi, Perkin Elmer Packard Cobra II Auto Gamma, Waltham, MA), and allowed to incubate for 5 minutes. A solution of 50 μg/mL of FGF-1 was added to the vial and allowed to react for 15 minutes, with intermittent mixing. The Iodo-beads were removed from the vial, and the solution was diluted to a final volume of 3 mL before being dialyzed against deionized water for 48 hours to remove any unincorporated 125I.
Protein Encapsulation and Release
Radiolabeled FGF-1 was added to the outer layer alginate solution before addition of the PLO-coated alginate microbeads. Encapsulation efficiency was determined by quantifying the fraction of FGF-1 encapsulated in the microbeads measured immediately after constructing the outer layer, relative to the total amount of FGF-1 added to the alginate solution used to create the outer layer. After formation of the outer layer, the microbeads were transferred into 2 mmol/L of CaCl2 solution and incubated at 37°C. The entire incubation medium was removed at predetermined time points and replaced with fresh solution. Initially, samples were taken every 20 minutes, and then hourly, and daily, as the rate of protein release decreased. Protein content was determined using a gamma counter (Perkin Elmer Packard Cobra II Auto Gamma). The percent FGF-1 release was calculated as the sum of FGF-1 released at a particular time point relative to the total amount encapsulated.
The influence of heparin on the rate of release of FGF-1 was also investigated. FGF-1 with 5 U/mL of heparin was incorporated into the outer alginate layer, and release was quantified in the same manner as described earlier.
The permeability of the microbeads was examined by incubation of the beads in 2 mmol/L of CaCl2 solutions containing either FITC-IgG (Stokes radius [rs] ∼ 5.5 nm) or FITC-bovine serum albumin (rs ∼ 3.6 nm) at a concentration of 2.5 μg/mL. Confocal images of the beads were taken at time zero, 5 hours, and 3 days. All images were obtained using a confocal laser-scanning microscope with a low pass filter of 505 nm and an excitation at 488 nm.
Fifty microbeads with an outer layer formed using 1.25% LVG were synthesized under 2 conditions: one in which 15 μg/mL of FGF-1 alone was incorporated into the outer alginate solution before addition to the microbeads, and the other in which 15 μg/mL of FGF-1 and 5 U/mL heparin were incorporated into the outer layer. The beads were placed in 1 mL of Hank's buffered saline solution (HBSS) containing 5 U/mL of heparin. Samples were taken at 12 hours, and the biological activity of released FGF-1 determined using an enzyme immunoassay for quantification of proliferating human umbilical vein endothelial cells. For this assay, human umbilical vein endothelial cells were seeded in a 96-well plate and grown in endothelial basal media containing 2% fetal bovine serum, bovine brain extract, gentamicin, hydrocortisone, and EGF, for 3 days. Cells were then cultured in 0.5% serum in basal media with gentamicin for 24 hours, before exposure to release samples for another 24 hours. Bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU), a synthetic nucleoside incorporated into newly synthesized DNA strands, was added to the wells after the 24-hour exposure to release samples. Proliferation was determined 24 hours after addition of BrdU by measuring BrdU incorporation using a BrdU cell proliferation assay kit purchased from Calbiochem (Darmstadt, Germany).
Omentum Pouch Model of Microbead Implantation
We have previously described the omentum pouch procedure for transplantation of alginate microbeads.45,46 Briefly, Lewis rats were anesthetized using isoflurane, and beads were implanted in an omental pouch via laparotomy. The alginate beads were placed on the surface of the surgically exposed omentum. The omentum pouch was created by a purse-string suturing along the edges of the omentum and then tying the sutures. The entire intact omentum was removed from each rat between 7 days and 6 weeks after implantation, fixed in formalin and paraffin embedded. Specimens were serially sectioned (5 μm thickness) for immunohistochemical analysis.
Immunohistochemistry and Image Analyses
Serial sections were stained for CD31, a sensitive marker of ECs, and smooth muscle alpha actin (SMA), a mural cell marker.47 Deparaffinized and rehydrated sections underwent steam antigen retrieval using Dako target retrieval solution (Dako, Carpinteria, CA) before immunohistological staining. Specimens were stained after an indirect procedure using rabbit anti-human CD31 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA) or rabbit anti-alpha smooth muscle actin (Abcam, Cambridge, MA) and a biotinylated anti-rabbit secondary antibody using the Vectastain Elite ABC kit (Vector Labs, Burlingame, CA). Sections were digitally imaged (20× objective, 0.017 Km/pixel) using an Axiovert 200 inverted microscope. Areas stained positive for CD31 were manually selected using Axiovision AC (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany). The percent vessel area was calculated using the following formula:
Four images (328 μm × 485 μm) per section were quantified for both CD31 and SMA analysis. Blood vessels per tissue view area were manually counted for CD31 as well as SMA-stained sections. Smooth muscle alpha actin coverage was calculated using the following formula.
Equation (Uncited)Image Tools
Equation (Uncited)Image Tools
After islet microencapsulation, rat islets were fluorescently labeled with carboxyfluorescein diacetate for 15 minutes followed by propidium iodide (PI) for 2 minutes to demonstrate live and necrotic cells respectively, before fixation with 4% paraformaldehyde.
Data are expressed as means ± SD. To determine significant differences between 2 groups of data, Student t test was performed. For evaluation of data requiring multiple comparisons, significant differences were determined by performing an analysis of variance with a Student-Newman-Keuls post test. In all cases, differences were considered significant for P < 0.05.
After successful formulation of the multilayer alginate-polyornithine-alginate microcapsules, as illustrated in Figure 3, we performed in vitro studies to examine the structural characteristics of the external alginate layer and to determine the kinetics of release of both wild-type FGF-1 and HBGAM-FGF-1 chimera from that layer. We found the external layer to be stable with a mean thickness between 113 and 164 μm, increasing with alginate concentration and G content. The outer layer was able to encapsulate and release FGF-1 for up to 30 days, with 1.25% of high G alginate displaying the most sustained release. The released FGF-1 retained its biologic activity in the presence of heparin, and the addition of the outer layer did not alter the permselectivity of the PLO membrane. Current in vivo studies are focused on examining the angiogenic effects of the released growth factor as well as the combined effect of encapsulating islets in the inner layer and the angiogenic protein in the external layer on blood glucose control in diabetic animals. We had previously shown that angiogenic protein can also be encapsulated and released from alginate microbeads, representing the inner alginate core, to induce angiogenesis in the omentum pouch.45,46,48
Multiple issues are involved in the development of a bioartificial pancreas using the approach of islet microencapsulation. These include the need for a retrievable graft with sustained function, scale-up devices for microencapsulation, an unlimited islet donor source, as well as efficient islet isolation, purification, and storage techniques. In our studies over the last decade, we have been examining different strategies to address these issues. In this paper, we describe a new design of the encapsulated islet transplantation that hopefully will meet all the criteria for a bioartificial pancreas. As shown in Figure 4, the omentum pouch containing the encapsulated islets and protein is easily retrievable, thus lending the graft to easy biopsy and in vitro functional, histochemical, and histopathological assessments. We have found that these alginate microbeads can be used to control the local delivery of growth factors, which can induce new blood vessel formation around the islet grafts in the omentum pouch,45,46,48 and would thus enhance graft viability through improved supply of oxygen and nutrients.
Microencapsulation of islets before transplantation is designed to obviate the need for immunosuppression of transplant recipients while expanding the donor source of islets so as to make this treatment modality widely available to diabetic patients. However, clinical application of this technology has been impaired by a number of factors, prominent among which is the death of large proportions of encapsulated islet grafts owing to severe hypoxia, resulting in the need for large quantities of islets to achieve normoglycemia in experimental diabetic animals. Although islets constitute approximately 1% of the pancreas, they receive approximately 6% to 10% of the blood flow to this gland,49,50 indicating a disproportionate level of perfusion in which islets receive and consume large amounts of oxygen. The usual high oxygen requirement of islets is interrupted during the process of islet isolation and purification when used for transplantation, and studies have shown that hypoxia has significant deleterious effects on the survival and function of islets.51-53 In the immediate posttransplant period, isolated islets are forced to depend upon diffusion of oxygen and nutrients through peripheral perfusion from the surrounding tissue within the site of transplantation,53 until the islet transplants are revascularized by angiogenesis, a process that requires 7 to 10 days.54 However, when isolated islets are microencapsulated and transplanted in the unmodified peritoneal cavity, no revascularization takes place, thus subjecting the islet grafts to extended periods of hypoxia and eventual death. Currently, clinical islet transplantation is performed through intraportal vein injection in the liver, where the islets are able to revascularize after several days, after an initial loss of nearly 80% of their vascular density within 24 hours of transplantation.55 What is desperately needed for long-term islet graft survival and function is an optimal procedure that provides a continuum of oxygen supply from the time of islet isolation through the immediate posttransplant period before the islets being integrated into a functional blood supply that will take over the supply of nutrients and oxygen to the graft. This need is currently being addressed by our group using a combination of nanotechnology and tissue engineering.
The pig pancreas has long been proposed and examined as an alternative source of islets for transplantation,14,42 albeit initial concerns were raised about the possible transmission of the porcine endogenous retrovirus, which now appear to pose little or no risk to humans receiving pig islet transplantation.56-58 There had also been initial reports of difficulties associated with isolating pig islets,59 but our group60 and many others have since described reliable techniques for the isolation of pig islets, thus making this species a viable donor source. We have also previously described an effective procedure for long-term storage of islets by cryopreservation.61 Other potential sources of unlimited supply of insulin producing cells for transplantation include the differentiation of stem cells into cells with β-cell-like characteristics and genetic engineering of adult cells for secretion of recombinant insulin.42
Another area of urgent need required in the development of a bioartificial pancreas is the availability of scale-up devices for microencapsulation. The 2 most widely used devices for microencapsulation are the air-syringe pump droplet generator62 and the electrostatic bead generator.63 Each of these devices is fitted with a single needle through which droplets of cells suspended in alginate solution are produced and cross-linked into spherical microbeads. A major drawback in the design of these instruments is that they are incapable of producing sufficient numbers of microcapsules in a short-time period to permit mass production of encapsulated and viable cells for transplantation in large animals and humans.64 A prolonged process of encapsulation of cells adversely affects the viability of the cells. A multineedle approach to producing more than one encapsulated cell at a time as a scale-up of the process has also been described with 4 needles.63 While this scale-up is a step forward in accelerating the production of encapsulated cells, production rates at several orders of magnitude higher are required to meaningfully produce sufficient quantities of encapsulated and viable cells to serve millions of patients requiring cell transplantation. For instance, for transplantation in human subjects, it has been estimated that for the 1 million islets needed for transplantation in a diabetic human subject, about 100 hours would be required to complete the encapsulation of this number of islets, assuming 1 islet/microcapsule. In practice, it has actually been estimated that the duration of the process would be closer to 200 hours because of the additional steps involved in the encapsulation procedure, after the generation of the initial cell-containing alginate microspheres,64 as outlined earlier in this paper. This situation raises an urgent need for a radically different approach to rapidly producing viable encapsulated cells in sufficient quantities for routine application in human cell therapy. We have designed and are currently testing the efficiency of new prototypes of scale-up devices for cell encapsulation.
In conclusion, β-cell replacement therapy through islet transplantation remains a very promising treatment option for type 1 diabetes, albeit it is still work in progress. We believe that a combination of nanotechnology, tissue engineering, use of more user-friendly transplant sites, and improved surgical techniques would result in the creation of a truly effective bioartificial pancreas that can be routinely used in diabetic patients.
The authors thank some former fellows and students that have worked with Dr. Opara on the bioartificial pancreas project, especially Drs. Marc Garfinkel, William Kendall Jr., Marcus Darrabie, and Hesham El-Shewy for their valuable contributions to this work.
1. Zhang P, Zhang X, Brown J, et al. Global healthcare expenditure on diabetes for 2010 and 2030. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010;87:293-301.
2. Keller U. From obesity to diabetes. Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 2006;76:172-177.
4. Chukwuma C Sr. Type 1 diabetic nephropathy: clinical characteristics and economic impact. J Diabetes Complications. 1993;7:15-27.
5. Whelan DJ, Greiner MA, Schulman KA, et al. Costs of inpatient care among Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure, 2001 to 2004. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3:33-40.
6. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:977-986.
7. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Weight gain associated with intensive therapy in the diabetes control and complications trial. Diabetes Care. 1988;11:567-573.
8. White SA, Shaw JA, Sutherland DER. Pancreas transplantation. Lancet. 2009;373:1808-1817.
9. Ido Y, Vindigni A, Chang K, et al. Prevention of vascular and neural dysfunction in diabetic rats by C-peptide. Science. 1997;277:563-566.
10. Hansen A, Johansson B-L, Wahren J, et al. C-peptide exerts beneficial effects on myocardial blood flow and function in patients with Type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 2002;51:3077-3082.
11. Ekberg K, Brismar T, Johansson B-L, et al. Amelioration of sensory nerve function by C-peptide in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 2003;52:536-541.
12. Wahren J, Sima AAF. C-peptide is relevant in type 1 diabetes and its complications: summary and conclusions to the special issue. Rev Diabet Stud. 2009;6:223-224.
13. Kendall DM, Robertson RP. Pancreas and islet transplantation. Challenges for the twenty-first century. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 1997;26:611-629.
14. Weir GC, Bonner-Weir S. Scientific and political impediments to successful islet transplantation. Diabetes. 1997;46:1247-1256.
15. Kenyon NS, Ranuncoli A, Masetti M, et al. Islet transplantation: present and future perspectives. Diabetes Metab Rev. 1998;14:303-313.
16. Harlan DM, Kenyon NS, Korsgren O, et al. Current advances and travails in islet transplantation. Diabetes. 2009;58:2175-2184.
17. Lacy PE, Kostianovsky M. Method for the isolation of intact islets from the pancreas. Diabetes. 1967;16:35-39.
18. Gray DW, McShane P, Grant A, et al. A method for isolation of islets of Langerhans from the human pancreas. Diabetes. 1984;33:1055-1061.
19. Rajotte RV, Warnock GL, Evans MG, et al. Isolation of viable islets of Langerhans from collagenase-perfused canine and human pancreases. Transplant Proc. 1987;19:918-922.
20. Ricordi C, Lacy PE, Finke EH, et al. Automated method for isolation of human pancreatic islets. Diabetes. 1988;37:413-420.
21. Balamurugan AN, Breite AG, Anazawa T, et al. Successful human islet isolation and transplantation indicating the importance of class 1 collagenase and collagen degradation activity assay. Transplantation. 2010;89:954-961.> >
22. Alejandro R, Lehmann R, Ricordi C, et al. Long-term function (6 years) of islet allografts in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 1997;46:1983-1989.
23. Shapiro AMJ, Lakey JRT, Ryan EA, et al. Islet transplantation in seven patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus using a glucocorticoid-free immunosuppressive regimen. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:230-238.
24. Robertson RP. Successful islet transplantation for patients with diabetes-fact or fantasy? N Engl J Med. 2000;343:289-290.
25. Ryan EA, Lakey JRT, Rajotte RV, et al. Clinical outcomes and insulin secretion after islet transplantation with the Edmonton protocol. Diabetes. 2001;50:710-719.
26. Ryan EA, Paty EA, Senior PA, et al. Five-year follow-up after clinical islet transplantation. Diabetes. 2005;54:2060-2069.
27. Rother KI, Harlan DM. Challenges facing islet transplantation for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Clin Invest. 2004;114:877-883.
28. Lim F, Sun A. Microencapsulated islets as bioartificial pancreas. Science. 1980;210:908-910.
29. Hill RS, Cruise GM, Hager SR, et al. Immunoisolation of adult porcine islets for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Use of photopolymerizable polyethylene glycol in the conformal coating of mass-isolated porcine islets. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1997;831:332-343.
30. Opara EC, Kendall WF. Immunoisolation techniques for islet cell encapsulation. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2002;2:503-511.
31. Soon-Shiong P, Feldman E, Nelson R, et al. Successful reversal of spontaneous diabetes in dogs by intraperitoneal microencapsulated islets. Transplantation. 1992;54:769-774.
32. Sun Y, Ma X, Zhou D, et al. Normalization of diabetes in spontaneously diabetic cynomologous monkeys by xenografts of microencapsulated porcine islets without immunosuppression. J Clin Invest. 1996;98:1417-1422.
33. Dufrane D, Goebbels RM, Saliez A, et al. Six month survival of microencapsulated pig islets and alginate biocompatibility in primates: proof of concept. Transplantation. 2006;81:1345-1353.
34. Wang T, Adcock J, Kuhtreiber W, et al. Successful allotransplantation of encapaulated islets in pancreatectomized canines for diabetic management without the use of immunosuppression. Transplantation. 2008;85:331-337.
35. Kendall WF, Collins BH, Hobbs HA, et al. Long-term normoglycemia induced by microencapsulated porcine islet xenotransplantation in a diabetic baboon. Proc 8th World Congress of the International Pancreas and Islet Transplantation Association, Innsbruck, Austria, 2001. Acta Chir Austriaca. 2001;33(suppl 174):56.
36. Soon-Shiong P, Heintz RE, Merideth N, et al. Insulin independence in a type 1 diabetic patient after encapsulated islet transplantation. Lancet. 1994;343-951.
37. Calafiore R, Calabrese G, Basta G, et al. Microencapsulated pancreatic islet allograft into nonimmunosuppressed patients with type 1 diabetes: first two cases. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(1):137-138.
38. Elliott RB, Escobar L, Tan PLJ, et al. Live encapsulated porcine islets from type 1 diabetic patient 9.5 yr after xenotransplantation. Xenotransplantation. 2007;14:157-161.
40. Brissova M, Powers AC. Revascularization of transplanted islets; can it be improved? Diabetes. 2008;57:2269-2271.
41. De Vos P, Van Straaten JFM, Nieuwenhuizen AG, et al. Why do microencapsulated islet grafts fail in the absence of fibrotic overgrowth? Diabetes. 1999;48:1381-1388.
42. Kizilel S, Garfinkel M, Opara E. The bioartificial pancreas: progress and challenges. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;6:968-985.
43. Darrabie MD, Kendall WF, Opara EC. Characteristics of poly-L-ornithine-coated alginate microcapsules. Biomaterials. 2005;26/34:6846-6852.
44. Khanna O, Moya ML, Opara EC, et al. Synthesis of multi-layered alginate microcapsules for the sustained release of fibroblast growth factor-1. J Biomed Mater Res. 2010;(in press).
45. Moya ML, Garfinkel MR, Liu X, et al. Fibroblast growth factor-1 released from alginate microbeads stimulates rapid neovascularization. J Surg Res. 2009;[Epub ahead of print].
46. Moya ML, Lucas S, Francis-Sedlak M, et al. Sustained delivery of FGF-1 increases vascular density in contrast to bolus administration. Microvasc Res. 2009;78:142-147.
47. Brey EM, McIntire LV, Johnston CM, et al. Three-dimensional, quantitative analysis of desmin and smooth muscle alpha actin expression during angiogenesis. Ann Biomed Eng. 2004;32:1100-1107.
48. Moya ML, Cheng MH, Huang JJ, et al. The effect of FGF-1 loaded alginate microbeads on neovascularization and adipogenesis in a vascular pedicle model of adipose tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2010;31:2816-2826.
49. Lifson N, Lassa CV, Dixit PK. Relation between blood flow and morphology in islet organ of rat pancreas. Am J Physiol. 1985;249:E43-E48.
50. Jansson L, Hellerstrom C. Stimulation by glucose of the blood flow to the pancreatic islets of the rat. Diabetologia. 1983;25:45-50.
51. Dionne KE, Colton CK, Yarmush ML. Effect of hypoxia on insulin secretion by isolated rat and canine islets of Langerhans. Diabetes. 1993;42:12-21.
52. Mendoza V, Klein D, Ichii H, et al. Protection of islets in culture by delivery of oxygen biding neuroglobin via protein transduction. Transplant Proc. 2005;37:237-240.
53. Davalli AM, Scaglia L, Zangen DH, et al. Vulnerability of transplanted islets in the immediate posttransplantation period; dynamic changes in structure and function. Diabetes. 1996;45:1161-1167.
54. Menger MD, Jaeger S, Walter P, et al. Angiogenesis and hemodynamics of microvasculature of transplanted islets of Langerhans. Diabetes. 1989;36(suppl 1):199-201.
55. Jones GL, Juszczak MT, Hughes SJ, et al. Time course and quantification of pancreatic islet revascularization following intraportal transplantation. Cell Transplant. 2007;16:505-516.
56. Elliott RB, Escobar L, Garkavenko O, et al. No evidence of infection with porcine endogenous retrovirus in recipients of encapsulated porcine islet xenografts. Cell Transplantation. 2000;9:895-901.
57. Heneine W, Tibell A, Switzer WM, et al. No evidence of infection with porcine endogenous retrovirus in recipients of porcine islet-cell xenografts. Lancet. 1998;352:695-699.
58. Paradis K, Langford G, Long Z, et al. Search for cross-species transmission of porcine endogenous retrovirus in patients treated with living pig tissue. Science. 1999;285:1236-1240.
59. Ricordi C, Socci C, Davalli AM, et al. Isolation of the elusive pig islet. Surgery. 1990;107:688-694.
60. Ching CD, Harland RC, Collins BH, et al. A reliable method for isolation of viable porcine islets. Arch Surg. 2001;136:276-279.
61. El-Shewy H, Kendall WF Jr, Darrabie MD, et al. Polyvinylpyrrolidone: a novel cryoprotectant in islet cell cryopreservation. Cell Transplant. 2004;13:237-243.
62. Wolters GH, Fritschy WM, Gerrits D, et al. A versatile alginate droplet generator applicable for microencapsulation of pancreatic islets. J Appl Biomat. 1992;3:281-286.
63. Hsu BR-S, Chen H-C, Fu S-H, et al. The use of field effects to generate calcium alginate microspheres and its application in cell transplantation. J Formos Med Assoc. 1994;93:240-245.
64. De Vos P, De Haan BJ, Schilfgaarde R. Upscaling the production of microencapsulated pancreatic islets. Biomaterials. 1997;18:1085-1090.
This article has been cited 11 time(s).
BiomaterialsEngineered multilayer ovarian tissue that secretes sex steroids and peptide hormones in response to gonadotropinsBiomaterials
GutCell and organ bioengineering technology as applied to gastrointestinal diseasesGut
BiomaterialsParacrine exchanges of molecular signals between alginate-encapsulated pericytes and freely suspended endothelial cells within a 3D protein gelBiomaterials
BiomaterialsPorcine pancreas extracellular matrix as a platform for endocrine pancreas bioengineeringBiomaterials
Pharmacological ReviewsThe Pharmacology of Regenerative MedicinePharmacological Reviews
Expert Opinion on Biological TherapyRegeneration and bioengineering of transplantable abdominal organs: current status and future challengesExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy
Expert Review of Clinical ImmunologyImmunoisolation: where regenerative medicine meets solid organ transplantationExpert Review of Clinical Immunology
Biotechnology ProgressUse of the mitochondria toxicity assay for quantifying the viable cell density of microencapsulated jurkat cellsBiotechnology Progress
PathobiologyDesign of a Bioartificial PancreasPathobiology
BiomaterialsEnhanced function of immuno-isolated islets in diabetes therapy by co-encapsulation with an anti-inflammatory drugBiomaterials
International Journal of PharmaceuticsAn ovarian cell microcapsule system simulating follicle structure for providing endogenous female hormonesInternational Journal of Pharmaceutics
type 1 diabetes; microencapsulation; immunoisolation; islet transplantation; bioartificial pancreas
© 2010 American Federation for Medical Research
Highlight selected keywords in the article text.