Comparison of gelatin and collagen scaffolds for fibroblast cell culture


  • Juthamas Ratanavaraporn Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University
  • Siriporn Damrongsakkul Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University
  • Neeracha Sanchavanakit Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University
  • Tanom Banaprasert Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University
  • Sorada Kanokpanont Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University


Gelatin, Collagen, Scaffold, Skin tissue engineering


Gelatin and collagen were used to produce the scaffold for fibroblast cell culture. The properties of scaffolds obtained from type A and type B gelatin were compared to scaffold obtained from collagen, which is widely used in skin substitute. Porous scaffolds were prepared by freeze drying and dehydrothermal (DHT) crosslinking method. DHT treatment time was performed at 24 and 48 h and the degree of crosslinking was determined by 2,4,6-trinitrobenzene sulphonic acid (TNBS). The morphology of scaffolds was investigated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The compressive modulus and swelling ratio of the scaffolds were reported. To confirm the applicability of the scaffolds as a skin substitute, in vitro cell adhesion and cell proliferation tests were employed in this study. The gelatin scaffolds showed comparable properties, especially cell proliferation, to those of collagen scaffolds but the rapid degradation rate of gelatin was the limiting factor of using gelatin in wound healing. However, gelatin scaffolds could be modified to reduce the degradation rate and used substitute collagen scaffold to reduce the cost of materials for scaffold fabrication.


Download data is not yet available.


(1) Bubnis, WA, O.C. 1992. The determination of e-amino groups in soluble and poorly soluble proteinaceous materials by a spectrophotometric method using trinitrobenzenesulfonic acid. Anal Biochem : 29-33.

(2) Buckley, C. and O’Kelly, K. 2004. Regular scaffold fabrication techniques for investigations in tissue engineering. Centre for Bioengineering, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland : 147-166.

(3) Eisenbud, D., Huang, N., Luke, S. and Silberklang, M. 2004. Skin substitutes and wound healing: current status and challenges. Wounds: A Compendium of Clinical Research and Practice. 16 : 2-17.

(4) Lin, Y., D.C.L. 2005. Comparison of physicalchemical properties of type 1 collagen from different species. Food Chemistry.

(5) Mao, J., Liu, H., Yin, Y. and Yao, K. 2003. The properties of chitosan–gelatin membranes and scaffolds modified with hyaluronic acid by different methods. Biomaterials. 24 : 1621–1629.

(6) Ozeki, M. and Tabata, Y. 2005. In vivo degradability of hydrogels prepared from different gelatins by various crosslinking method. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 16(5) : 549-561.

(7) Schiavon, O., Veronese, Francesco, Caliceti, Paolo, Orsolini and Piero. 2004. Biologically active conjugates having a detectable reporter moiety and method of identification of the derivative. U.S. Patent, Editor. Debio Recherche Pharmaceutique.




How to Cite

J. Ratanavaraporn, S. Damrongsakkul, N. Sanchavanakit, T. Banaprasert, and S. Kanokpanont, “Comparison of gelatin and collagen scaffolds for fibroblast cell culture”, J Met Mater Miner, vol. 16, no. 1, Apr. 2017.



Original Research Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)