Dataset published in the article "The Effects of the Coating and Aging of Biodegradable Polylactic Acid Membranes on In Vitro Primary Human Retinal Pigment Epithelium Cells"

Fig_2A-2D. Representative light microscopy images of (Fig_2A) passage 0 hRPE cells on a commercial PC 12-well plate and the same cells seeded at the same cell area density on (Fig_2B) commercial PC, (Fig_2C) uncoated electrospun PLA membranes, and (Fig_2D) coated electrospun PLA membranes after 21 days of culture. Representative images of the membranes without cells are shown in supplementary Figure S1 in the article for comparison. Red scale bar: 300 µm. PC: polycarbonate; PLA: polylactide; MG: Matrigel coated.

Fig_3. The quantification of pigmentation on the different membranes for the cultivation of hRPE cells. (A) A scatter plot showing the relative pigmented surface (RPS) in the images captured for several hRPE cultures on diverse supports specified accordingly. The lines represent the general trend of the data per supporting membrane (Black: Polycarbonate; Blue: Uncoated PLA; Red: Matrigel-coated PLA). (B) The mean RPS of the cultures on diverse supporting membranes (PC: polycarbonate; PLA: polylactide). Error bars: confidence interval (95% confidence). *** p < 0.001.

Fig_4. TEER values of hRPE cell cultured on commercial inserts (black, 9 ≤ n ≤ 22 donors), uncoated PLA (blue dots/line, 2 ≤ n ≤ 4 donors), and coated PLA (red dots/line, 2 ≤ n ≤ 4 donors). Lines represent general trend of data per supporting membrane (Black: Polycarbonate; Blue: Uncoated PLA; Red: Matrigel-coated PLA). PC: polycarbonate, PLA: polylactic acid.

Fig_5A-5B. Cell detachment properties of cultivated hRPE cells on different supporting membranes. (Fig_5A) hRPE cell cultures on PLA membranes being well attached (left) and with detaching extracellular matrix (right). (Fig_5B) Representation of amount of PLA membranes showing detachment (merged from 8 different donors in 4 independent experiments).

Fig_6. Relative expression of hRPE markers in cultivated hRPSs on different supporting membranes; BEST1 and RPE65 in hRPE cultivated on uncoated and coated PLA membranes in comparison to commercial polycarbonate inserts. Expression of monitored genes in commercial PC inserts was set to 1. Data are shown as ratios. PC: polycarbonate, UC: uncoated PLA membranes, MG: Matrical-coated PLA membranes; 3 donors; error: SEM, * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01.

Fig_7A-7B. Genome integrity of hRPE cells plated on uncoated versus coated PLA. After 21 days in culture, hRPE cells were collected and genomic DNA was isolated. Cellular mtDNA copy number (Fig_7A) and mtDNA damage and nDNA damage (Fig_7B) in hRPE plated on different membranes were analyzed by qPCR-based methods; 3 donors; error: SEM.

Fig_8. Expression of target genes in hRPE plated on newly synthesized (<1 month) PLA membranes versus 21-month-old uncoated (UC) PLA membranes. Relative gene expressions of BEST1, RPE65, PAX6, ZO-1, and SOX9 were determined by RT-qPCR using GAPDH as internal control; 2 donors; error: SEM.