4.5 Article

Polycarbonate-urethane hard segment type influences esterase substrate specificity for human-macrophage-mediated biodegradation

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMATERIALS SCIENCE-POLYMER EDITION
Volume 16, Issue 9, Pages 1167-1177

Publisher

VSP BV
DOI: 10.1163/1568562054798563

Keywords

polyurethanes; macrophages; esterase; inhibitors; biodegradation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous studies have shown that esterase activity can degrade a variety of polyurethanes (PUs), including polycarbonate-based PUs (PCNUs). When Cultured on PCNUs, differing in their chemistries, monocyte-derived macrophages (MDM) synthesized and secreted different amounts of both cholesterol esterase (CE) and monocyte-specific esterase (MSE). MDM were seeded on PCNUs synthesized with hexane diisocyanate (HDI) or 4,4'-methylene-bis-phenyl diisocyanate (NIDI), PCN and [C-14]butanediol (BD) in the ratio 3: 2: 1 (referred to as HDI321 or MDI321). The effect of phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF, a serine esterase and proteinase inhibitor), sodium fluoride (NaF, a MSE inhibitor) and sodium taurocholate (NaT, a CE stimulator) was assessed on degradation (measured by radiolabel release (RR)) and esterase activity in MDM lysate. The results were compared to the effect that these reagents had on commercially available CE and carboxyl esterase (CXE), which has a specificity similar to MSE. NaF inhibited CXE- and MDM-mediated RR to the same extent as for both PCNUs. However, the MDM-mediated RR from MDI321 was 1.8-times higher than HDI321 in the presence of NaT (P = 0.005). This study suggests that the difference in diisocyanate chemistry may dictate the relative contribution of each esterase to a specific material's degradation. This may be related to both the substrate specificity of each esterase, as well as by the relative amount of each esterase that the specific biomaterial substrates induce the cells to synthesize and secrete.

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