4.5 Article

Factors influencing alginate gel biocompatibility

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
Volume 98A, Issue 1, Pages 40-52

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.33047

Keywords

alginate; hydrogel; biocompatibility; microcapsules; cell encapsulation

Funding

  1. Canadian Diabetes Association
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. Fonds de la recherche en sante Quebec (FRSQ)
  4. l'Association Diabete Quebec

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Alginate remains the most popular polymer used for cell encapsulation, yet its biocompatibility is inconsistent. Two commercially available alginates were compared, one with 71% guluronate (HiG), and the other with 44% (IntG). Both alginates were purified, and their purities were verified. After 2 days in the peritoneal cavity of C57BL/6J mice, barium (Ba)-gel and calcium (Ca)-gel beads of IntG alginate were clean, while host cells were adhered to beads of HiG alginate. IntG gel beads, however, showed fragmentation in vivo while HiG gel beads stayed firm. The physicochemical properties of the sodium alginates and their gels were thoroughly characterized. The intrinsic viscosity of IntG alginate was 2.5-fold higher than that of HiG alginate, suggesting a greater molecular mass. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy indicated that both alginates were similar in elemental composition, including low levels of counterions in all gels. The wettabilities of the alginates and gels were also identical, as measured by contact angles of water on dry films. Ba-gel beads of HiG alginate resisted swelling and degradation when immersed in water, much more than the other gel beads. These results suggest that the main factors contributing to the biocompatibility of gels of purified alginate are the mannuronate/guluronate content and/or intrinsic viscosity. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J BiomedMater Res Part A: 98A: 40-52, 2011.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available