Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison and evaluation of biomechanical, electrical, and biological methods for assessment of damage to tissue collagen

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cell and Tissue Banking Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In regard to evaluating tissue banking methods used to preserve or otherwise treat (process) soft allograft tissue, current tests may not be sufficiently sensitive to detect potential damage inflicted before, during, and after processing. Using controlled parameters, we aim to examine the sensitivity of specific biomechanical, electrical, and biological tests in detecting mild damage to collagen. Fresh porcine pulmonary heart valves were treated with an enzyme, collagenase, and incubated using various times. Controls received no incubation. All valves were cryopreserved and stored at −135 °C until being rewarmed for evaluation using biomechanical, permeability, and cell viability tests. Statistically significant time dependent changes in leaflet ultimate stress, (p = 0.006), permeability (p = 0.01), and viability (p ≤ 0.02, four different days of culture) were found between heart valves subjected to 0–15 min of collagenase treatment (ANOVA). However, no statistical significance was found between the tensile modulus of treated and untreated valves (p = 0.07). Furthermore, the trends of decreasing and increasing ultimate stress and viability, respectively, were somewhat inconsistent across treatment times. These results suggest that permeability tests may offer a sensitive, quantitative assay to complement traditional biomechanical and viability tests in evaluating processing methods used for soft tissue allografts, or when making changes to current validated methods. Multiple test evaluation may also offer insight into the mechanism of potential tissue damage such as, as is the case here, reduced collagen content and increased tissue porosity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Grant from the Scientific and Technical Affairs Committee of the American Association of Tissue Banks (to KGMB and AL-J) and National Institutes of Health Grants DE021134, DE018741, and AR055775 to HY, and a National Institutes of Health F31 predoctoral fellowship DE023486 to GJW.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hai Yao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

KGMB is an owner and employee of Tissue Testing Technologies, ZC, EDG, and LHC are employees of Tissue Testing Technologies. None of the other authors of this paper have any potential conflicts of interest that might be construed as affecting the conduct or reporting of the work presented.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hepfer, R.G., Brockbank, K.G.M., Chen, Z. et al. Comparison and evaluation of biomechanical, electrical, and biological methods for assessment of damage to tissue collagen. Cell Tissue Bank 17, 531–539 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-016-9560-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-016-9560-y

Keywords

Navigation