Characterization of a novel bile acid-based delivery platform for microencapsulated pancreatic β-cells

Figures & data

Figure 1. Optical microscopy of islet containing (a) LVSA-PLO microcapsule and (b) LVSA-PLO-UDCA microcapsule. L1 represents the vertical diameter and L2 the horizontal diameter.

Figure 2. MTT assays results (cell viability) of—LVSA-PLO: negative control without β-cells or UDCA, LVSA-PLO-UDCA: negative control without β-cells, Pre-MC: positive control pre-microencapsulation β-cells, BC-LVSA-PLO: control microcapsules with β-cells, BC-LVSA-PLO-UDCA: test microcapsules with β-cells and UDCA.

Table I. Microencapsulated cell content and efficiency of the microencapsulation process for the two formulations containing β-cells.

Formulation	Average live cell count per microcapsule (n = 10)	Efficiency of live islet cell microencapsulation (%)
LVSA-PLO (control)	404 ± 7	13 ± 2
LVSA-PLO-UDCA (test)	455 ± 6^**	15 ± 1

^**p < 0.01

Figure 3. The swelling index (degree of swelling) of both types of microencapsulated β-cells (LVSA-PLO-UDCA test) and (LVSA-PLO control).

Figure 4. The percentage of intact microcapsules remaining over time for β-cells containing LVSA-PLO and LVSA-PLO-UDCA microcapsules (total duration = 24 h). Initially, both formulations displayed identical resistance to vibrational stress, but conventional LVSA-PLO microcapsules eventually sustained damage and breakage toward the end of the experiment while UDCA reinforced microcapsules displayed significantly better recovery.