Histological and histochemical evaluation of human oral mucosa constructs developed by tissue engineering

Reconstruction of large oral mucosa defects is often challenging, since the shortage of healthy oral mucosa to replace the excised tissues is very common. In this context, tissue engineering techniques may provide a source of autologous tissues available for transplant in these patients. In this work, we developed a new model of artificial oral mucosa generated by tissue engineering using a fibrin-agarose scaffold. For that purpose, we generated primary cultures of human oral mucosa fibroblasts and keratinocytes from small biopsies of normal oral mucosa using enzymatic treatments. Then we determined the viability of the cultured cells by electron probe quantitative X-ray microanalysis, and we demonstrated that most of the cells in the primary cultures were alive and had high K/Na ratios. Once cell viability was determined, we used the cultured fibroblasts and keratinocytes to develop an artificial oral mucosa construct by using a fibrin-agarose extracellular matrix and a sequential culture technique using porous culture inserts. Histological analysis of the artificial tissues showed high similarities with normal oral mucosa controls. The epithelium of the oral substitutes had several layers, with desmosomes and apical microvilli and microplicae. Both the controls and the oral mucosa substitutes showed high suprabasal expression of cytokeratin 13 and low expression of cytokeratin 10. All these results suggest that our model of oral mucosa using fibrin-agarose scaffolds show several similarities with native human oral mucosa.

Why Public Health Agencies Cannot Depend on Good Laboratory Practices as a Criterion for Selecting Data: The Case of Bisphenol A

In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION: Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS: Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.

Strategies for the successful implementation of viral laboratory automation.

It has been estimated that more than 70% of all medical activity is directly related to information providing analytical data. Substantial technological advances have taken place recently, which have allowed a previously unimagined number of analytical samples to be processed while offering high quality results. Concurrently, yet more new diagnostic determinations have been introduced - all of which has led to a significant increase in the prescription of analytical parameters. This increased workload has placed great pressure on the laboratory with respect to health costs. The present manager of the Clinical Laboratory (CL) has had to examine cost control as well as rationing - meaning that the CL's focus has not been strictly metrological, as if it were purely a system producing results, but instead has had to concentrate on its efficiency and efficacy. By applying re-engineering criteria, an emphasis has had to be placed on improved organisation and operating practice within the CL, focussing on the current criteria of the Integrated Management Areas where the technical and human resources are brought together. This re-engineering has been based on the concepts of consolidating and integrating the analytical platforms, while differentiating the production areas (CORE Laboratory) from the information areas. With these present concepts in mind, automation and virological treatment, along with serology in general, follow the same criteria as the rest of the operating methodology in the Clinical Laboratory.