Copyright
        ©The Author(s) 2015.
    
    
        World J Stem Cells. Mar 26, 2015; 7(2): 243-252
Published online Mar 26, 2015. doi: 10.4252/wjsc.v7.i2.243
Published online Mar 26, 2015. doi: 10.4252/wjsc.v7.i2.243
            Table 1 Benefits and shortcomings of Matrigel, extracellular matrix proteins, synthetic peptides, synthetic polymers and hydrogels
        
    | Substrate | Advantages | Disadvantages | 
| Matrigel | Allows feeder-free cell culture | Xenogeneic origin[6] | 
| Inexpensive | Undefined components[6] | |
| Long-term hESCs culture[7,8] | Pathogenic contamination risk[4] | |
| Neu5Gc immunogenic epitope[5] | ||
| Batch-to-batch variability[6] | ||
| ECM proteins | See subsections below | Batch-to-batch variability | 
| Vitronectin | Degradation upon sterilization | |
| rhLM-332 | Pathogenic contamination risk | |
| LM-E8 | Not-Scalable[30] | |
| rh E-cadherins-Fc protein | High production cost[30] | |
| Fibronectin | Immunogenicity risk[17] | |
| Vitronectin | Long-term hESC culture (> 30 passages)[15] | Degradation upon sterilization | 
| αVβ5 integrin receptor mediated cell attachment[13] | Not-Scalable[16,30] | |
| High production cost[30] | ||
| rhLM-332 | High α6β1 integrin affinity[18] | |
| LM-E8 | Smaller, easily purified, higher purity vs 780 ku laminins[20] | Not-Scalable[30] | 
| Better stem cell adhesion than Matrigel and intact laminins[20] | High production cost[30] | |
| ROCK inhibitor Y-27632 not needed[20] | ||
| rh E-cadherins-Fc protein | hESC self-renewal, maintenance and pluripotency comparable to Matrigel™[26] | Low cell adherence vs Matrigel[26] | 
| Synthetic peptides | No batch-to-batch variation[36] | High production costs[47,48] | 
| Immunogenicity risk avoided[37] | Sterilization difficulties[47] | |
| Since chemically synthesized | Easily degradable[47] | |
| Long-term hESCs culture[32,37,44] | Labor intensive cell passaging | |
| Limited scale-up potential of 2D platform[51] | ||
| Synthemax surface | Gamma irradiation sterilization[39] | |
| 2 yr shelf-life[39] | ||
| hESCs cryopreserved and thawed on substrate[38] | ||
| Scalable[38] | ||
| Long-term hESCs culture[38-40] | ||
| Synthetic polymers | Inexpensive[45,47] | Limited scale-up potential of 2D platform | 
| PMVE-alt-MA | Easy and rapid fabrication[45,49] | |
| PMEDSAH | Highly manipulable[47] | |
| APMAAm | Long-term substrate stability[46] | |
| Polyacrylates | ||
| Chitosan-alginate polymers | ||
| (pDTEc) polymer scaffolds | ||
| Hydrogels | In-vivo 3D type environment[58] | Difficult to analyze cells embedded in hydrogels | 
| Thermoresponsive and pH sensitive properties[54,55,58] | ||
| (AEtMA-Cl)- DEAEA based | Enzymatic release of cells from hydrogel[57] | |
| PDEAAm-based | ||
| HA-based | ||
| Alginate-collagen based | ||
| PEG-based | ||
| PPP-based | 
- Citation: Enam S, Jin S. Substrates for clinical applicability of stem cells. World J Stem Cells 2015; 7(2): 243-252
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-0210/full/v7/i2/243.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4252/wjsc.v7.i2.243

 
         
                         
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                         
                         
                        