Fig. 5: The physiochemical performance of nanofibrous scaffolds.

a Young’s modulus of different fiber scaffolds (n = 3, values were mean ± std. dev., *p < 0.05 when comparing MSaP and PLA (0.021) and aP (0.015) groups, respectively, **p < 0.01 when comparing MSaP-aL/p and PLA (0.0062) and aP (0.0043) groups, respectively, and ***p < 0.001 when comparing MSaP-aL/p and MSaP (0.00054) via one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s post hoc test). b Degradation curve of different fiber scaffolds (n = 3, degradation values were mean ± std. dev., *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 when comparing MSaP-aL/p and three other samples at the same time point via two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s post hoc test). c FTIR spectra of different fiber scaffolds. d Concentration of pDNA in the aLiposome solutions before and after grafting at the surface of scaffold (n = 3, concentration of pDNA values were mean ± std. dev.). e Cumulative release curve of aLiposomes in different pH environments (n = 3, aLiposome release values were mean ± std. dev., *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 when comparing pH 5.8 and the other two pH at the same time via two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s post hoc test). f Cumulative release curve of NGF in microsol electrospinning in different pH environments (n = 3, NGF release values were mean ± std. dev., statistical analysis evaluated by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s post hoc test).