화학공학소재연구정보센터
홈 로그인 로그아웃 연락처 사이트맵
Macromolecular Research, Vol.25, No.8, 806-816, August, 2017
DOI10.1007/s13233-017-5085-x  Export Citation
In vivo Bone Regeneration Ability of Different Layers of Natural Silk Cocoon Processed Using an Eco-Friendly Method
HaeYong Kweon, You-Young Jo, Hyun Seok1, Seong-Gon Kim2, †, Weon-Sik Chae3, Sunaina Sapru4, Subhas C. Kundu4, Dae-Won Kim5, Na-Rae Park6, Xiangguo Che6, and Je-Yong Choi6
  • Sericultural and Apicultural Materials Division, National Institute of Agricultural Science, Wanju-gun, Jeonbuk 55365, Korea
  • 1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju, Chungbuk 28644, Korea
  • 2Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Gangwon 25457, Korea
  • 3Daegu Center, Korea Basic Science Institute, Daegu 41566, Korea
  • 4Department of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal-721302, India
  • 5Department of Oral Biochemistry, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Gangwon 25457, Korea
  • 6Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Cell and Matrix Research Institute, Skeletal Diseases Genome Research Center, BK21 Plus KNU Biomedical Convergence Program, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu 41944, Korea
E-mail:
Silk cocoons are primarily composed of the proteins fibroin and sericin. To achieve guided bone regeneration (GBR), we have developed a simple and ecofriendly processing technique to obtain microperforated thin membranes from cocoons. The separated silk membranes composed of both fibroin and sericin were classified by the cocoon layers (i.e., inner, middle, or outer) from which they originated. This report details the biological properties and the cellular responses of the three silk layers. The different cocoon layers were compared for their bone regeneration capabilities in vivo. The porosity of the silk nets increased from the inner layer to the outer layer when all of the membranes were compared using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A difference in spectral intensity was observed in the Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectra, indicating different amino acid compositions in these layers. An amino acid composition test demonstrated that the serine content decreased from the outer layer to the inner layer. Characterization of the protein release from each net demonstrated that the highest amount of protein release was observed in the inner layer group. The middle layer showed higher alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity than the other layers in cellular experiments. Animal experiments indicated that the middle layers exhibit the highest bone volume 8 weeks post operation (p<0.05). The membranes obtained directly from the thin middle layer of silk cocoons without any regeneration protocol have the potential to be used as an eco-friendly bone regeneration material for in vivo applications.
Keywords:Silk cocoon;membrane;guided bone regeneration;rabbit calvarial defect
  1. Baek Y, Kim JH, Song JM, Yoon SY, Kim HS, Shin SH, Maxillofac. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 38, 14 (2016)
  2. Khojasteh A, Morad G, Behnia H, J. Oral Implantol., 39, 386 (2013)
  3. Lee SW, Um IC, Kim SC, Cha MS, Maxillofac. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 37, 32 (2015)
  4. Lindfors LT, Tervonen EA, Sandor GK, Ylikontiola LP, Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod., 109, 825 (2010).
  5. Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M, Clin. Oral Implants Res., 20, 113 (2009)
  6. Omenetto FG, Kaplan DL, Science, 329(5991), 528 (2010)
  7. Yoo CK, Jeon JY, Kim YJ, Kim SG, Hwang KG, Maxillofac. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 38, 17 (2016).
  8. Inoue S, Tanaka K, Arisaka F, Kimura S, Ohtomo K, Mizuno S, J. Biol. Chem., 275, 40517 (2000)
  9. Kundu B, Kurland NE, Subia B, Patra C, Engel FB, Yadavalli VK, Kundu SC, Prog. Polym. Sci, 39, 251 (2014)
  10. Fei DD, Liu FJ, Cui QN, He JH, Thermal Sci., 17, 1546 (2013)
  11. Singh CP, Vaishna RL, Kakkar A, Arunkumar KP, Nagaraju J, Cell Microbiol., 16, 1354 (2014)
  12. Aramwit P, Siritientong T, Srichana T, Waste Manage. Res., 30, 217 (2012)
  13. Kaur J, Rajkhowa R, Tsuzuki T, Millington K, Zhang J, Wang XG, Biomacromolecules, 14(10), 3660 (2013)
  14. Dash R, Acharya C, Bindu PC, Kundu SC, BMB Rep., 41, 236 (2008)
  15. Takasu Y, Yamada H, Tamura T, Sezutsu H, Mita K, Tsubouchi K, Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol., 37, 1234 (2007).
  16. Padamwar MN, Pawar AP, J. Sci. Ind. Res., 63, 323 (2004)
  17. Dong Z, Zhao P, Zhang Y, Song Q, Zhang X, Guo P, Wang D, Xia Q, Sci. Rep., 6, 21158 (2016)
  18. Panilaitis B, Altman GH, Chen J, Jin HJ, Karageorgiou V, Kaplan DL, Biomaterials, 24, 3079 (2003)
  19. Aramwit P, Kanokpanont S, De-Eknamkul W, Srichana T, J. Biosci. Bioeng., 107(5), 556 (2009)
  20. Uff CR, Scott AD, Pockley AG, Phillips RK, Biomaterials, 16, 355 (1995)
  21. Lee SW, Park YT, Kim SG, Kweon H, Jo YY, Lee HS, J. Korean Assoc. Maxillofac. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 34, 293 (2012).
  22. Kim KH, Jeong L, Park HN, Shin SY, Park WH, Lee SC, Kim TI, Park YJ, Seol YJ, Lee YM, Ku Y, Rhyu IC, Han SB, Chung CP, J. Biotechnol., 120, 327 (2005)
  23. He JH, Kong HY, Yang RR, Dou H, Faraz N, Wang L, Feng C, Thermal Sci., 16, 1263 (2012)
  24. Chen F, Porter D, Vollrath F, Mater. Sci. Eng. C-Biomimetic Supramol. Syst., 32, 772 (2012)
  25. Maekawa H, Suzuki Y, Dev. Biol., 78, 394 (1980)
  26. Ha YY, Park YW, Kweon HY, Jo YY, Kim SG, Macromol. Res., 22(9), 1018 (2014)
  27. Seok H, Kim MK, Kim SG, Kweon H, J. Craniofac. Surg., 25, 2066 (2014)
  28. Kim SG, Kim MK, Kweon H, Jo YY, Lee KG, Lee JK, Maxillofac. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 38, 11 (2016).
  29. Seok H, Kim SG, Kweon H, Jo YY, Lee KG, Kang TY, Chae WS, Min SK, Ahn JH, Park JW, Choi DJ, Tissue Eng., 11, 476 (2014)
  30. Teramoto H, Kameda T, Tamada Y, Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem., 72, 3189 (2008)
  31. Teramoto H, Miyazawa M, Biomacromolecules, 6(4), 2049 (2005)
  32. Zheng K, Chen Y, Huang W, Lin Y, Kaplan DL, Fan Y, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 8, 14406 (2016)
  33. Prasong S, Yaowalak S, Wilaiwan S, Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 12, 872 (2009)
  34. Datta A, Ghosh AK, Kundu SC, Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B: Biochem. Mol. Biol., 129, 197 (2001).
  35. Takasu Y, Yamada H, Tamura T, Sezutsu H, Mita K, Tsubouchi K, Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol., 37, 1234 (2007)
  36. Takasu Y, Hata T, Uchino K, Zhang Q, Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol., 40, 339 (2010)
  37. Takasu Y, Yamada H, Tsubouchi K, Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem., 66, 2715 (2002)
  38. Takasu Y, Hata T, Uchino K, Zhang Q, Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol., 40, 339 (2010)
  39. Kaur J, Rajkhowa R, Tsuzuki T, Millington K, Zhang J, Wang XG, Biomacromolecules, 14(10), 3660 (2013)
  40. Soong HK, Kenyon KR, Opthalmology, 91, 479 (1984)
  41. Merkel KD, Erdmann JM, McHugh KP, Abu-Amer Y, Ross FP, Teitelbaum SL, Am. J. Pathol., 154, 203 (1999)
  42. Jao D, Mou X, Hu X, J. Funct. Biomater., 7, 22 (2016)
  43. Yang MY, Shuai YJ, Zhang C, Chen YY, Zhu LJ, Mao CB, OuYang HW, Biomacromolecules, 15(4), 1185 (2014)