Figure 1.
Illustrations of sample excision for decellularization and in-vivo study.
Figure 2.
HE staining for native uterine tissue (A) and decellularized uterine tissue by 0.1%SDS detergent for 1 hour (B), 1%SDS detergent for 1 hour (C), 1%SDS detergent for 2 hours (D), HHP10-4 (E), HHP10-37 (F), HHP30-4 (G), HHP30-37 (H), 1%Triton-X detergent for 24 hours (I), 3%Triton-X detergent for 24 hours (J) and 3%Triton-X detergent for 48 hours (K).
Legend in red refers to: E – epithelial layer, S – stroma layer and SMC – smooth muscle layer.
Figure 3.
MT staining for native uterine tissue (A) and decellularized uterine tissue by 0.1%SDS detergent for 1 hour (B), 1%SDS detergent for 1 hour (C), 1%SDS detergent for 2 hours (D), HHP10-4 (E), HHP10-37 (F), HHP30-4 (G), HHP30-37 (H), 1%Triton-X detergent for 24 hours (I), 3%Triton-X detergent for 24 hours (J) and 3%Triton-X detergent for 48 hours (K).
Figure 4.
VVG staining for native uterine tissue (A) and decellularized uterine tissue by 0.1%SDS detergent for 1 hour (B), 1%SDS detergent for 1 hour (C), 1%SDS detergent for 2 hours (D), HHP10-4 (E), HHP10-37 (F), HHP30-4 (G), HHP30-37 (H), 1%Triton-X detergent for 24 hours (I), 3%Triton-X detergent for 24 hours (J) and 3%Triton-X detergent for 48 hours (K).
Figure 5.
Quantification of protein contents of native and decellularized uterine tissue in terms of the temporal change of the DNA amount (A), contents of DNA (B), hydroxyproline (C) and elastin (D).
Data are presented as mean ± SE. Bars indicate p<0.05.
Figure 6.
TEM picture of collagen fibers in native uterine tissue (A), SDS 1% for 1 hour (B) and High hydrostatic pressure 30-4 (C).
Figure 7.
Mechanical properties of native and decellularized uterine tissues.
Young’s modulus (A), rupture stress (B) and thickness (C). Data are presented as mean ± SE. Bars indicate p<0.05.
Figure 8.
Photograph of native uterus (A) and reconstructed uterus (B) with excision sites as labelled.
Figure 9.
Qualitative observation of reconstructed uterus for tissue regeneration at days 30 (H&E, vimentin and α-SMA) and blood vessel (CD31), respectively, in sham (A, D, G and J), SDS 1% for 1 hour (B, E, H and K) and HHP 30-4 (C, F, I and L), and quantitative analysis of DNA contents (M).
Data are presented as mean ± SE. Arrows in the picture indicate the interface of implant and native tissue.
Figure 10.
Qualitative observation of reconstructed uterus at days 30 for collagen (MT) and elastin (VVG), respectively, in sham (A and D), SDS 1% for 1 hour (B and E) and HHP 30-4 (C and F); and quantitative analysis of hydroxyproline (G) and elastin (H).
Arrows in the picture indicate the interface of implant and native tissue. Data are presented as mean ± SE.
Figure 11.
Mechanical properties of reconstructed uterus at day 30.
Young’s modulus (A), rupture stress (B) and thickness (C). Data are presented as mean ± SE.
Figure 12.
Immunostaining of Ki67 (A–C) and estrogen receptor (ER, D–F), respectively, in sham (A and D), SDS 1% for 1 hour (B and E) and HHP 30-4 (C and F) at days 30.
Arrows in the picture indicate the interface of implant and native tissue.
Figure 13.
Numbers of fetuses in the reconstructed uterine horns on day 21 of pregnancy.
Data are presented as mean ± SE.