Harvesting decellularized liver extracellular matrix from rodents for 3D scaffold fabrication

Figures & data

Figure 1. Decellularization of liver in (A) rat and (B) mice.

Table 1. Comparison of weight reduction in rat and mice liver post decellularization.

Species (n = 6)	Liver weight before decellularization (g)	Liver weight after decellularization (g)	% weight reduction
Swiss albino mice	1.857 ± 0.512	0.255 ± 0.068	85.915 ± 3.114
Wistar rats	7.247 ± 2.175	1.026 ± 0.378	85.992 ± 3.352

Figure 2. Histological characterisation of native and decellularized tissue. (A) Rat native liver tissue at 20X magnification, (B) Rat native liver tissue at 40X magnification, (C) Rat decellularized liver tissue at 20X magnification, and (D) Rat decellularized liver tissue at 40X magnification.

Table 2. Comparison of residual DNA content in rat and mice liver post decellularization.

Species (n = 4)	DNA content before decellularization (ng/mg)		DNA content after decellularization (ng/mg)	% reduction
Swiss albino mice	1036.759 ± 80.328	27.084 ± 19.821		97.39
Wistar rats	1157.537 ± 58.216	29.082 ± 5.509		97.49

Table 3. Comparison of total protein content in rat and mice liver post decellularization.

Species (n = 3)	Total protein content before decellularization (µg/ml)	Total protein content after decellularization (µg/ml)	% retention
Swiss albino mice	3122.273 ± 217.07	1229.356 ± 131.034	39.37
Wistar rats	4048.509 ± 495.848	2648.566 ± 88.375	65.42

Table 4. Comparison of sGAG content in rat and mice liver post decellularization.

Species (n = 4)	sGAG content before decellularization (ng/mg)	sGAG content after decellularization (ng/mg)	% retention
Swiss albino mice	6916.503 ± 027.675	1391.389 ± 64.575	20.12
Wistar rats	6962.165 ± 728.785	5458.577 ± 281.366	78.4

Figure 3. Histological characterisation of native and decellularized tissue. (A) Mice native liver tissue at 20X magnification, (B) Mice native liver tissue at 40X magnification, (C) Mice decellularized liver tissue at 20X magnification, and (D) Mice decellularized liver tissue at 40X magnification.

Figure 4. Scanning Electron Micrograph acquired at 10 kV (A) Rat native liver tissue at 500X magnification, (B) Rat native liver tissue at 1000X magnification, (C) Rat decellularized liver tissue at 500X magnification, and (D) Rat decellularized liver tissue at 1000X magnification.

Figure 5. Scanning Electron Micrograph acquired at 10 kV (A) Mice native liver tissue at 500X magnification, (B) Mice native liver tissue at 1000X magnification, (C) Mice decellularized liver tissue at 500X magnification, and (D) Mice decellularized liver tissue at 1000X magnification.

Figure 6. Quantification of DNA in decellularized rat and mice liver. (A) Residual DNA content (*p < .05, ****p < .0001) and (B) DNA gel electrophoresis.

Figure 7. SDS PAGE to determine protein molecular weight distributions in the decellularized liver tissues of rat and mice.

Figure 8. Estimation of sGAG content in decellularized rat and mice liver (**p < 0.05, ***p < .001).

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.